Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61393 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: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5399 Sep 10, 2013

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5401 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
ONE more time. Gay marriage is NOT equal protection!
Sure it is. It is the protection for two people to enter into marriage. Thus far, you have proven utterly incapable of producing any state interest served by denying equal protection for same sex couples to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
anonymous wrote:
MARRIAGE is not equal protection.
Is it a protection of the law?
anonymous wrote:
Farm subsidies are not equal protection!
Wow, how far off topic would you care to go? Is this because farm subsidies are not part of "the criminal code?"
anonymous wrote:
You have no idea as to what "equal protection" is applied to. Equal protection is defined by the criminal code, not the civil code.
How long have you been suffering form this delusion? Equal protection has nothing to do with the criminal code. Only a dullard would imply that it did.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1

No mention of "the criminal code."

If you objective in posting here was to make yourself look foolish, mission accomplished.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5402 Sep 10, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
Obviously, You laugh at funerals.
This is obvious how, exactly? It appears that you are making assumptions, which in addition to being stupid, you can't begin to support with fact. You know what is said of those who assume, don't you?
Liberals R Defective wrote:
You radical queers main goal is to force, by government decree, religious organizations to accept something that is against their beliefs.
Sorry, charlie. We seek nothing more than equality under the law, which is constitutionally guaranteed.

I'm sorry you hate the constitution.
Liberals R Defective wrote:
Religious people do not FORCE their beliefs on anyone.
Actually, they do when they fight to keep traditional marriage between opposite sex couples, but can't provide a state interest served by excluding same sex couples.
Liberals R Defective wrote:
You radicals do.
No, we fight for equality, which doesn't adversely impact anyone else's rights.
Liberals R Defective wrote:
That includes the so called " hate" laws and "workplace equality" bull shit.
It does not violate the religious freedom of anyone to treat others with the same respect and dignity that they expect for themselves.

Ironically, being a largely Christian nation, if we truly applied WWJD, equality would be the answer. Arguably, those arguing against equality are just hypocrites.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5403 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So neither can a sterile person but they can marry......MARRIAGE IS CIVIL CONTRACT HAVING KIDS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Then let's create a civil contract that has no bearing on sexuality. Gays can get one. Straights who want to pool finances can get one and polygamists can get one. That way the government is absolved of the responsibility of endorsing one sort of behavior over another.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5404 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I DID NOT SAY DEPORTED IDIOT....Just aid they would fit in better in Iran. SHOW WHERE I SAID DEPROTS OR EVEN FORCED TO GO....Just a idea they would fit better in Iran...
Oh and I am a Libertarian...Not a commie liberal...and sure not a nazi fascist rethuglican.
So you're giving them the CHOICE of moving rather than face your ridicule or perhaps something worse.

NAZI rethuglican. Doesn't sound too much like you're being a libertarian to me. I CAN tell you of one historical political party that you sound like.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5406 Sep 10, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it is. It is the protection for two people to enter into marriage. Thus far, you have proven utterly incapable of producing any state interest served by denying equal protection for same sex couples to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
<quoted text>
Is it a protection of the law?
<quoted text>
Wow, how far off topic would you care to go? Is this because farm subsidies are not part of "the criminal code?"
<quoted text>
How long have you been suffering form this delusion? Equal protection has nothing to do with the criminal code. Only a dullard would imply that it did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
No mention of "the criminal code."
If you objective in posting here was to make yourself look foolish, mission accomplished.
Tell us another story, Parse bunny!

Tell us all about how YOUR state has a responsibility to maintain the breeding stock, but only as long as non-reproducing gays get a cut too. Just tell everyone!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5407 Sep 10, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it is. It is the protection for two people to enter into marriage. Thus far, you have proven utterly incapable of producing any state interest served by denying equal protection for same sex couples to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
<quoted text>
Is it a protection of the law?
<quoted text>
Wow, how far off topic would you care to go? Is this because farm subsidies are not part of "the criminal code?"
<quoted text>
How long have you been suffering form this delusion? Equal protection has nothing to do with the criminal code. Only a dullard would imply that it did.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
No mention of "the criminal code."
If you objective in posting here was to make yourself look foolish, mission accomplished.
BTW - You've trashed your analytical skills again. Of course farm subsidies are not part of the criminal code. That's what those of us with cognitive skills call an "analogy".
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5408 Sep 10, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet homosexuality survives to this day. Might as well blame heterosexuals -- they sometimes produce homosexual children.
Cancer exists to this day too. Should we subsidize cancer in our population, or work to cure it. Just sayin..
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5410 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that? I just said since that person doesn't like freedom and equality they might be better off and fit better in Iran.
I did not call for anyone to lose rights. He was.
You can't call for anyone to lose a right they don't have.

Time to accept the difference between social engineering laws and Constitutional rights. Social engineering laws like Affirmative Action are inherently unconstitutional, but many people feel they are necessary to fix flaws within our economic system.

There's a fine line between economic and social fairness. Sorry, but our Liberals have lost their way in politics because they simply assume that everyone has a private agenda except them. Everyone else is a bigot, but not THEM!

Jefferson owned and had sex with his slaves. Was he a rapist or ahead of his time in matters of civility? You can't leave these decisions to a secret society of aristocrats.
sarah16

Fitzroy, Australia

#5411 Sep 10, 2013
I am personally against gay marriage. It spits in God's face. Liberal dickheads want it to destroy traditional values. I made a video explaining why I oppose it:

anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5412 Sep 10, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are trying to say is that homosexual COUPLES cannot produce children; however, there are plenty of homosexuals who do have children. And a lesbian woman and a gay man could produce a child, if they cared to do so. And, as the other poster just stated, sterile couples get married all the time, so your point is moot!
And YOU are right! The point IS moot.

This debate is disingenuous as long as the advocates of straight marriage AND gay marriage keep their mouths shut on the issue of unfair taxation, dependent benefits, insurance prejudice, and any number of other slights against over forty percent of the adult population, the unmarried.

Like Obamacare, the very real financial problems of the working class has been largely dumped on the young. It's contemptibly irresponsible.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5413 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
You cant get what you read can you...I just said since they hate freedom and equality maybe they would be better off in Iran where they can not only hate but kill gays at will.
RIDICULE?????????? Yea gay people get called names and attacked all the time...BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
Now I love freedom equality and justice for ALL....GET THE ALL PART....why don't you?
Un huh!...and just who ARE people like ME?

You're kind of young, aren't you. You haven't learned to lie like most of the creeps on Topix yet.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5416 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Tell us another story, Parse bunny!
Is that the best you can do? By offering such a juvenile response, you imply that you have no valid on topic argument, just infantile insults.
anonymous wrote:
Tell us all about how YOUR state has a responsibility to maintain the breeding stock, but only as long as non-reproducing gays get a cut too. Just tell everyone!
Actually, the state has no such interest, nor need it worry. 40% of live births were to out of wedlock couples according to the CDC, no allowing same sex marriage has no impact upon the propagation of the species. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm

It is relatively insane to imply that it would have an impact. I don't know anyone who has sworn off sex because same sex couples could marry.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5417 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
BTW - You've trashed your analytical skills again. Of course farm subsidies are not part of the criminal code. That's what those of us with cognitive skills call an "analogy".
I was able to see the argument you were offering was utterly irrational.

If you don't want to look like an idiot, I would suggest that you stop offering stupid and irrelevant arguments.
sarah16

Fitzroy, Australia

#5418 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not real and holds no sway in real world. Now off to your Nazi kkk meeting and find out who else to hate,
you speak through ignorance. all my black brothers hate them too and are sick of being compared with them.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5419 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
We have just that already..IT IS CALLED MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Lets keep equality the rule and not segregation.
No. Marriage is defined by sexual role playing. Polygamists can't marry more than one person. The courts expect those in a marriage to be bonded by a sex addiction. A divorce prejudicially favors the "victim" of sexual infidelity.

...and let's face it. What the aristocracy really wants is to encourage breeding among the livestock workforce. They are only too happy to see the Church shaming those who don't do "God's Work" by raising more children, while they put the financial squeeze on those beasts of burden.

I'm not even slightly saying that I can change your mind. I'm saying that there will be no sympathy when the single minority becomes the majority. Over forty percent and rising! Tic-tok! Tic-tok!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5420 Sep 10, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that the best you can do? By offering such a juvenile response, you imply that you have no valid on topic argument, just infantile insults.
<quoted text>
Actually, the state has no such interest, nor need it worry. 40% of live births were to out of wedlock couples according to the CDC, no allowing same sex marriage has no impact upon the propagation of the species. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
It is relatively insane to imply that it would have an impact. I don't know anyone who has sworn off sex because same sex couples could marry.
Parse bunny! I'm not doing ANYTHING. Your cut-and-paste rhetoric isn't worth responding to and you ignore so many of my points that I figure you just don't like reposting them and showing your logical failures!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5421 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
No. Marriage is defined by sexual role playing.
Wow, you aren't the brightest, are you?
anonymous wrote:
Polygamists can't marry more than one person.
Of course, not. Doing so would, by definition, be seeking greater, not equal, protection of the law.
anonymous wrote:
The courts expect those in a marriage to be bonded by a sex addiction.
So, this is your perception of reality, is it?
anonymous wrote:
A divorce prejudicially favors the "victim" of sexual infidelity.
Actually, many states offer no fault divorce. Your perception of the law is child like.
anonymous wrote:
...and let's face it. What the aristocracy really wants is to encourage breeding among the livestock workforce. They are only too happy to see the Church shaming those who don't do "God's Work" by raising more children, while they put the financial squeeze on those beasts of burden.
Sorry, Charlie, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
anonymous wrote:
I'm not even slightly saying that I can change your mind. I'm saying that there will be no sympathy when the single minority becomes the majority. Over forty percent and rising! Tic-tok! Tic-tok!
Of course, this has no bearing upon the topic at hand. When last I checked, marriage was still a choice. Choosing to remain single is also a choice.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5422 Sep 10, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Parse bunny! I'm not doing ANYTHING.
You certainly aren't presenting a rational or factually supported argument in support of your position.
anonymous wrote:
Your cut-and-paste rhetoric isn't worth responding to and you ignore so many of my points that I figure you just don't like reposting them and showing your logical failures!
This sounds like an admission that you cannot specifically refute the arguments I have put forward. I accept your admission of the inferiority of your position.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5423 Sep 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
EVERYONE AHS SAME RIGHTS IDIOT...
Get the all and everyone stuff moron.
Are you religious and if so what religion? Please honest answer.
Hey IDIOT! I thought you already knew all about me!

I'll tell you honestly, although you don't deserve it.

I'm of largely Irish ancestry on my mother's side. She never was a particularly faithful Catholic but she raised us in the Catholic Church out of respect to her family. None of my siblings nor I have a religious bone in our bodies although the most liberal one of the bunch has raised his kids in his wife's Protestant church because the Catholics in his neighborhood got all uppity about him doing penance for staying away from the Church for so long.

Do I believe in God. No, but for logic's sake I remain agnostic.

Do I believe in morality? Absolutely! But that morality is relative to the rules of a culture and must be decided by its members.

Do I believe that all moral perspectives deserve Constitutional protection? No. We would have anarchy if people only obey the laws that they see fit to obey.

Can the minority challenge the laws defined by the majority? Yes. That is what the Bill of Rights is all about. But you have to challenge those laws through the legal system. If you're convinced that the legal system is irreconcilably biased, then you choose revolution or emigration. Anything else is a lie and the truth is a moral code that I hold dear.

With that in mind, your trash talk is the sign of a young person with no authority over anything. You just embarrass yourself with 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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 min Dr Guru 214,515
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 29 min litesong 59,517
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 3 hr californio 1,053
News As California's Largest Lake Evaporates, A Coun... 3 hr Three Psyche 2
News As Lake Mead dwindles, can an interstate water ... 5 hr Three Psyche 1
join illuminati and achieve riches fame and pow... Thu Cynthia 1
Youth Track & Field Teams in Los Angeles County (Oct '11) Thu adreena thomas 15
More from around the web