Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 60551 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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5371 Sep 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell you what! Why don't you tell them I said so?!
I don't think much of those groups. They spend too much time shaking down rich celebrities whenever they can. I don't think they are willing to offer an opinion that doesn't have a monetary value attached to it.
Turns out that their comrade, President Obama has left the building. I don't think they're keen on crossing swords with the G-men anymore. No money to be made. Shaking down celebrities and CEO's is where the buckazoids are.
Doesn't address the point of the question.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5372 Sep 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>The essence is that I did not have to make an active choice because I saw no reason to dispute conventional wisdom. Like most adolescents, I was sexually motivated enough to not worry about what stimulated me. I was fairly constantly a hair trigger from arousal. In all honesty, it was far more important to me not to give women the idea that I was out to put the moves on them. You're wasting everyone's time to ask for proof.
All I can offer is the anecdotal reasons why I don't approach women who are always working on a "trade-up" formula in their male relations. I don't waste time on @ssholes who think they can "whip" me with a "what have you done for me lately?" attitude. When it comes down to it, teenagers (and other people!) are typically jerks.
Choosing between jerks and maladjusted weirdos didn't occupy much of my time. I took a sit-it-out approach to serious relationships until adulthood set in. By then, I really didn't feel like indulging anything or anyone gay. I guess I'm ...just ....not ....a ...drama..... QUEEN!!!!!
and which gender was it tht would hit that hair trigger for your arousal? both genders? it would have to have been if you made a choice about your gender preference.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5373 Sep 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
1. Completely theoretical. No evidence in the article. Not even much solid theory!
2. The "Selfless Gene". Sounds to me like you're implying that gays are selfless and straights are not. Just my observation, not one word on gays in that article. Oh, the irony!
3. This site is being rejected by my browser. Are you directing me to a hacker site? It seems to be a blog site anyway. Trash.
4. The Economist? My, there's a bastion of scientific reasoning! If identical twins show similar statistical tendencies towards homosexuality, then there's a genetic element. Sure! I tend to agree. But those same twins would also show a statistical link towards getting cancer, or any number of genetically motivated health problems. They can also choose not to smoke and thus avoid cancer, etc. We did not evolve into a species that gets cancer. Cancer is caused be broken mechanisms in DNA that regulate the cell.

Now, the part in the last article about "the straight truth" is complete New Age trash. Personality tests? Completely subjective hooey from egocentric interpretations as to how people should behave. If a guy comes into a room, sits down next to me and puts his hand on my leg, I'm not in the mood to be social! A woman, a gay or a liberal usually thinks I should, but the rest of us don't care what they think.

Try again with REAL scientific evidence.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5374 Sep 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't address the point of the question.
What question? That you want to hear what they would say?

Say what you mean if you intend to say anything. As far as I can see, you're demonstrating your inability to find a comfort zone in telling the truth.

...but we already know that!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5375 Sep 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and which gender was it tht would hit that hair trigger for your arousal? both genders? it would have to have been if you made a choice about your gender preference.
Women! That's spelled w o m e n! But I'll be honest, a lot of that was based on the idea that women were also interested in sex and guys were their preferred partner. Also, the taboo factor of homosexuality just simply convinced me that it wasn't a valid choice.

I don't even slightly regret not pursuing that option, and age and experience have only reinforced that decision.

Let the poor little toe-tapping Republicans go off on a death wish. They're dogmatic jerks who paint themselves into corners every day. They have far more reasons for self-loathing than homosexuality, but I'm just not interested in their escapes anymore than I'm interested in yours.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5376 Sep 10, 2013
The model of male/female marriage teaches our kids to be responsible for their children. A same sex model of marriage has no such advantage. Certainly, same sex couples are tolerated and accepted in our society; that's not the same as teaching children to become responsible adults, parents and citizens.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5378 Sep 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The model of male/female marriage teaches our kids to be responsible for their children. A same sex model of marriage has no such advantage....
You don't believe that gay couples are responsible for their children? That we don't raise our kids responsibly and teach them to be responsible for their own families?

Where in the heck did you get that crap? Have you completely lost your mind?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5379 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
.......... Also, the taboo factor of homosexuality just simply convinced me that it wasn't a valid choice.
I don't even slightly regret not pursuing that option, and age and experience have only reinforced that decision.
.....
If you were attracted to both genders, then you are bi-sexual, even if you limit your actions to only one gender. The gender you choose to have sex with and form relationships with isn't your orientation. You remain bi-sexual.

Gay and straight people don't have that option, as they are only attracted to one gender, and it is unnatural for us to try to form sexual relationships with a gender we can NEVER be attracted to.

Unless you are trying to say that you are gay, and forced yourself into loveless heterosexual unions of convenience with people you can never be attracted to or romantically love, just to avoid a "taboo factor".

If that's the case, then I feel very sorry for you.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5380 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>.......
Choosing between jerks and maladjusted weirdos didn't occupy much of my time. I took a sit-it-out approach to serious relationships until adulthood set in. By then, I really didn't feel like indulging anything or anyone gay. I guess I'm ...just ....not ....a ...drama..... QUEEN!!!!!
Well, you kinda are, just by your posts. Not necessarily a bad thing, but you can't really deny it.

But it is pretty simple, if you had the capability to be attracted to either gender, then you are bisexual, not gay or straight. Just because you decided to restrict your actions to one gender doesn't change that. It was a valid choice for you, and one you have the ability to make, but one not available to a gay person, or a straight one.

For us, there is attraction to only one gender, right from the get go, and it's just not healthy to pretend otherwise, just to fit in. I've seen people try to fit into that lie, and it leave carnage behind in their lives, and in the lives of the people that love them.

It's a basic concept - form relationships and marry a person you are attracted to and romantically love. And that's the same for gay folks, straight folks, and everything else in the middle.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5381 Sep 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't believe that gay couples are responsible for their children? That we don't raise our kids responsibly and teach them to be responsible for their own families?
Where in the heck did you get that crap? Have you completely lost your mind?
Start here. Read carefully.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

Social scientists of family transitions have until recently commonly noted the elevated stability and social benefits of the two-parent (heterosexual) married household, when contrasted to single mothers, cohabiting couples, adoptive parents, and ex-spouses sharing custody (Brown, 2004, Manning et al., 2004 and McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). In 2002, Child Trends—a well-regarded nonpartisan research organization—detailed the importance for children’s development of growing up in “the presence of two biological parents”(their emphasis; Moore et al., 2002, p. 2). Unmarried motherhood, divorce, cohabitation, and step-parenting were widely perceived to fall short in significant developmental domains (like education, behavior problems, and emotional well-being), due in no small part to the comparative fragility and instability of such relationships.

In their 2001 American Sociological Review article reviewing findings on sexual orientation and parenting, however, sociologists Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz began noting that while there are some differences in outcomes between children in same-sex and heterosexual unions, there were not as many as family sociologists might expect, and differences need not necessarily be perceived as deficits. Since that time the conventional wisdom emerging from comparative studies of same-sex parenting is that there are very few differences of note in the child outcomes of gay and lesbian parents ( Tasker, 2005, Wainright and Patterson, 2006 and Rosenfeld, 2010). Moreover, a variety of possible advantages of having a lesbian couple as parents have emerged in recent studies ( Crowl et al., 2008, Biblarz and Stacey, 2010, Gartrell and Bos, 2010 and MacCallum and Golombok, 2004). The scholarly discourse concerning gay and lesbian parenting, then, has increasingly posed a challenge to previous assumptions about the supposed benefits of being raised in biologically-intact, two-parent heterosexual households.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5382 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Completely theoretical. No evidence in the article. Not even much solid theory!
2. The "Selfless Gene". Sounds to me like you're implying that gays are selfless and straights are not. Just my observation, not one word on gays in that article. Oh, the irony!
3. This site is being rejected by my browser. Are you directing me to a hacker site? It seems to be a blog site anyway. Trash.
4. The Economist? My, there's a bastion of scientific reasoning! If identical twins show similar statistical tendencies towards homosexuality, then there's a genetic element. Sure! I tend to agree. But those same twins would also show a statistical link towards getting cancer, or any number of genetically motivated health problems. They can also choose not to smoke and thus avoid cancer, etc. We did not evolve into a species that gets cancer. Cancer is caused be broken mechanisms in DNA that regulate the cell.
Now, the part in the last article about "the straight truth" is complete New Age trash. Personality tests? Completely subjective hooey from egocentric interpretations as to how people should behave. If a guy comes into a room, sits down next to me and puts his hand on my leg, I'm not in the mood to be social! A woman, a gay or a liberal usually thinks I should, but the rest of us don't care what they think.
Try again with REAL scientific evidence.
None of the researchers of the above papers were/are gay, nor observably liberal.

"REAL scientific evidence" ?

You first.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5383 Sep 10, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I used the word "equation" in terms of a logical structure. If the structure is sound, then it should remain true if you substitute different values in the variable positions of the statement.
Didn't you get that? Have trouble with the "A-is-to-B as C-is-to-?" section of the SAT?
Bigots have the Right of Free Speech. We let you ramble on, don't we? lol
Let's look at the variables more closely.
VARIABLE SET "A":
Dixon is anti-gay, for stated ideological reasons.
Neo-nazis are anti-Jewish, for stated ideological reasons.
Klansmen are anti-Black, for stated ideological reasons.
Eugenecists are anti-human defects, for stated ideological reasons.
VARIABLE SET "B":
Schools with gay children.
Schools with Jewish children.
Schools with black children.
Schools with developmentally disabled children.
Play mix and match between items from sets "A" and "B", and assess the results.
SHEESH!
None of that changes the fact you believe Crystal Dixon is a bigot who has common ground with Neo Nazi's according to you. According to you dissent=bigotry. In the case of Crystal Dixon and her expression gays not the same as persons of color for stated reasons. Crystal Dixon is guilty of thought crimes and all that is fine with you. Here is a Crystal Dixon quote.

''If the University is taking the Herculean leap to assume that my
convictions affect my service to or decisions about those practicing
homosexuality, please consider this: it is commonly believed/perceived
that there are one, possibly two practicing homosexuals in the Human
Resources Department. I hired both of them (one last year and one
earlier this year)! I hired both of
them with the perception that while
they may be homosexual, more importantly they were competent,
motivated and simply the best candidates for the jobs...'' Crystal Dixon.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5384 Sep 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The model of male/female marriage teaches our kids to be responsible for their children. A same sex model of marriage has no such advantage. Certainly, same sex couples are tolerated and accepted in our society; that's not the same as teaching children to become responsible adults, parents and citizens.
Imagine the message of responsibility taught if we didn't pay people to get married or breed.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5385 Sep 10, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Start here. Read carefully.
.....
So, you are trying to prove that I, and all the gay couples I know with great kids, are not raising them to be responsible adults?

You do realize that's nuts, right?

Are you really trying to prove that my kid's good grades, enjoyment of sports, healthy relationships with friends and family, and their solid hope for the future are figments of their teachers, friends, coaches, and their parent's imaginations?

Geesh.

At least START from reality.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5386 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine the message of responsibility taught if we didn't pay people to get married or breed.
Gay couples have been doing that for decades, without any financial benefit to themselves or their families.

It hasn't seems to help the breeders behave any more responsibly.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5387 Sep 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were attracted to both genders, then you are bi-sexual, even if you limit your actions to only one gender. The gender you choose to have sex with and form relationships with isn't your orientation. You remain bi-sexual.
Gay and straight people don't have that option, as they are only attracted to one gender, and it is unnatural for us to try to form sexual relationships with a gender we can NEVER be attracted to.
Unless you are trying to say that you are gay, and forced yourself into loveless heterosexual unions of convenience with people you can never be attracted to or romantically love, just to avoid a "taboo factor".
If that's the case, then I feel very sorry for you.
No. I'm saying that as a teenager, I'd be able to get arousal while doing my homework or mowing the lawn! No hypothetical partner at all was required and I don't like people interpreting that as a sign of my preferences.

If there's a genetic element to that, perhaps I've got a genetic heritage that fat-headed West Europeans don't understand. While I suspect that perhaps I've got a biofeedback system that is a bit more voluntary than most, it is unlikely to be a single mutation.

Best guess, that would be a trait common in southeast Asia, and probably based on the genetic inheritance of the ancient Denisovans. How that would have gotten into my genes, I can only speculate. Perhaps Melungeons in the family tree, or something Native American.

Now, how does one address the politics of silly people who don't have voluntary control over their body? Well, that is a two way street! Those same political hacks think it's a "fresh meat" hunting trip to torment alienated teens of all types. People who should be adults are NOT being them. If all this speculation is based on fact, you've just been handed a greater responsibility to show restraint, and I'm guessing THAT isn't on your list of things to do, is it?

Adulthood requires a little Yin and Yang to go along with that Karma.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5388 Sep 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay couples have been doing that for decades, without any financial benefit to themselves or their families.
It hasn't seems to help the breeders behave any more responsibly.
Gays only represent a tiny fraction of the population, and an even lesser fraction of those married with kids. You don't have the math or the role model to comment. You're just playing on the failed logic that two wrongs don't make a right.

Technically, you'r right! Two wrongs DON'T make a right. Stop subsidizing marriage and breeding.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5389 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear Iran would fit your stone age beliefs better,...MOVE NOW OR LIVE WITH PROGRESS...
There's a fine example of majority rule with complete disregard for individual rights. Pot, meet kettle!

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5391 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't define evidence as the opinion of a government funded scientist. Show us some REAL evidence and support it.
I don't need much evidence myself. Genetics and evolution clearly suggest that homosexuality is not a survival trait. Scr#w Rainbow Power politics.
Yet homosexuality survives to this day. Might as well blame heterosexuals -- they sometimes produce homosexual children.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5392 Sep 10, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet homosexuality survives to this day. Might as well blame heterosexuals -- they sometimes produce homosexual children.
Homosexuals do not naturally produce any children at all.

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) 7 min JRB 192,381
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr Earthling-1 53,996
Why do black people hate cats? (Mar '09) 12 hr David 52
News California vaccine bill: Questions and answers 18 hr Matthew 5
Racism Sat Realist 3
News Renewable energy: Ukiah a 70 percent carbon freea Sat Solarman 1
News California governor signs strict school vaccine... Fri RiccardoFire 22
More from around the web