Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61304 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.

George

Anonymous Proxy

#52629 Jun 24, 2014

Judged:

20

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#52630 Jun 24, 2014
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not intelligent so where does that leave you? out on that limb? don't fall
mikie and rizzo said you are better at giving smoothies than any one in your tranny cult
There I came up with someting rational!
Aw hell Bruno, Mikey said you give the best smoothies ever. That's good because your English sucks.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#52631 Jun 25, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean by responding to arrogant comments that really don't say anything?
Really, if you are just out to bait a patriot, you're targeting the wrong guy. That's not going to stop you from purging your stereotype fantasies, is it?
What stereotypes? I am talking about facts Maybe you refuse gay marriage because of religious fairy tales like 90% if the Americans do.
anonymous

Fremont, CA

#52632 Jun 25, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What stereotypes? I am talking about facts Maybe you refuse gay marriage because of religious fairy tales like 90% if the Americans do.
And there's stereotype number one. You never read any of the history in the Evolution forum, did you? I used to spend a lot of time there but got tired of listening to closet gays looking to bash holy rollers with rudimentary concepts of Evolution that a fifth grader could manage.

I saw YOU over there though. Are you envious of the fact that most people of the world try to pick up English as a second language while Americans can't think of a second language that's worth their attention?

Oh, well. I'm not trying too hard to remember my middle school French. It's been more years since I needed French and more years before that since I actually studied it than you've had to learn your useless AOLspeak.

Do try to understand the difference between fact and opinion but don't waste my time with lying. You might as well go back to the Evolution forum. You'll undoubtedly fail the same test of demonstrating the difference between a scientific "theory" and a "law". The gays who try to use Evolution to support homosexuality always do. I'll feed it to you slowly.

Scientific theory: Unproven explanation based on observable evidence. Not considered a "law" unless it can be applied reliably to every situation.

Scientific law: Explanation of natural world that has been demonstrated to be so universal that it is no longer disputed.

Evolution, as applied to homosexuality is at BEST theory, but I observe it to no more exist as part of the natural order than say, wetting the bed when one is a child. There certainly is no evolutionary justification of the condition. and more than likely, it is an unwanted side effect of genetics that usually has a positive influence, but has yet to be refined to the point where we keep the positive and remove the negative effects.

Genetics is not magic. It's a painfully random process that can only work with the chemical infrastructure already in place. You don't jump off a cliff and evolve wings. If millions of simpleton socialists jump off of a cliff, one may survive the fall and procreate. Generations later, we may have a lot of useless socialists who have a thick enough skull to survive the useless act of jumping off of a cliff.

This is the core problem with Political Correctness. It is the religion of the fool who buys into Science(tm) looking for the Science God's miracles. All they get is socialist parasites. When the public has had enough of professional victims, I'm sure people like you will be at the front of the mob, and looking to burn the shaman of political correctness at the stake.

My goal is to see that you find your way to the stake instead. I really don't have much of a plan beyond that. Get your science miracles from someone who cares.

Judged:

13

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#52633 Jun 25, 2014
Thank you for confirming my 'prejudices'(facts).
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text> Are you envious of the fact that most people of the world try to pick up English as a second language while Americans can't think of a second language that's worth their attention?
No. It is someone's own fault if he refuses to learn other languages. English is only my fifth best language.

I speak High German, Low German, Dutch, Turkish and some English.
anonymous wrote:
Scientific theory: Unproven explanation based on observable evidence. Not considered a "law" unless it can be applied reliably to every situation.
That's wrong. A theory is a well-confirmed explanation of nature phenomenons.
Unproven ideas are hypothesis or assumptions.
It is not 'Evolution is just a theory'. It is 'Evolution is even a theory'.
'Theory' is the best status a idea can ever accomplish.
anonymous wrote:
Scientific law: Explanation of natural world that has been demonstrated to be so universal that it is no longer disputed.
That's wrong as well. Scientific laws are a part of theories. You can't seperate laws and theories. The gravitational theory contains the gravitational law for example.
anonymous wrote:
Evolution, as applied to homosexuality is at BEST theory, but I observe it to no more exist as part of the natural order than say, wetting the bed when one is a child. There certainly is no evolutionary justification of the condition. and more than likely, it is an unwanted side effect of genetics that usually has a positive influence, but has yet to be refined to the point where we keep the positive and remove the negative effects.
Really? It has already accomplished the theory status? That means that it's already proven.
Skippy

San Jose, CA

#52634 Jun 25, 2014
Everybody hoo don't have rational argument gets off this thread.

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Fremont, CA

#52635 Jun 25, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is.
<quoted text>
You're just a homophobe.
<quoted text>
Crazy train!
Troll. Making up words is not your prerogative. You have no ideas with which to apply them to. All you are doing is acting out a second childhood of rebelling against authority.

Your efforts to induce mob psychology are very much noted. The public is getting a bit sick of it but not enough it would seem. While they support Duck Dynasty, they don't seem ready to get to the source of things. The public is funny that way. They have a built in mechanism for sorting lies that favor their selfishness from the ones that don't get them free stuff.

They can go back to looking under dirty seat cushions for their next fix as far as I care.

Your effort to mimic my mimicry of your useless repetition of lies isn't relevant. I can simply go back to doing exactly what I'm doing right now. I'm reminding people of the clear principles required to support their beliefs. THEY still have to come up with the details and THEY simply have to do what everyone since the beginning of time has had to do, adapt to a changing world.

...and you're a dummy-dumm-dumm!....because IT'S THE 14TH AMENDMENT!!!!!!

See? There's a quantum leap required here. Name calling > paradigm shift is also describable as defining the conflict > Confirming one's resolve. This is a VERY important intellectual process that requires one to understand the difference between that which is internal and that which is external.

All I"m really demonstrating is the inability of the urban rat to transcend the moment, which leads to a perpetual cycle of conflict. As I've ALWAYS stated, and as you simply NEVER will understand, mental illness is at work. Overstimulated urban rats never know when to step down and let someone else take charge. They live and die by a couple rules of a flawed culture.

1. Morality is dictated by the acquisition of nookie.

2. Government "authority" absolve one from moral accountability.

Everything else is fairly rinky-dink. I've indulged your trash talk long enough to make my point because simply making it without a real world demonstration won't fly with political rats. The wheel turns, now the next phase will be about defining accountability.

Where would you like to start?

Financial accountability is the usual socialist choice, because IT'S THE 14TH AMENDMENT!!!! of course! I'd rather let you pick. You need to feel ownership of the debate. Heh! Heh!

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Fremont, CA

#52636 Jun 25, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
Thank you for confirming my 'prejudices'(facts).
<quoted text>
No. It is someone's own fault if he refuses to learn other languages. English is only my fifth best language.
I speak High German, Low German, Dutch, Turkish and some English.
<quoted text>
That's wrong. A theory is a well-confirmed explanation of nature phenomenons.
Unproven ideas are hypothesis or assumptions.
It is not 'Evolution is just a theory'. It is 'Evolution is even a theory'.
'Theory' is the best status a idea can ever accomplish.
<quoted text>
That's wrong as well. Scientific laws are a part of theories. You can't seperate laws and theories. The gravitational theory contains the gravitational law for example.
<quoted text>
Really? It has already accomplished the theory status? That means that it's already proven.
It's called the "Theory of Evolution" not the "Hypothesis" or the "Law" Nothing in Evolution is confirmed because it is based on RANDOM mutations. THAT is why it is a theory. It can't be proven. It has nothing to do with a hierarchy of laws within theories written up by grad students who are only worthy of publishing "hypotheses"

At least in this language, there is no real difference between theory and hypothesis. Only traditional naming conventions and awkward syntax pushes "hypothesis" to the back seat of the science bus. There may be a bit of an unspoken pecking order in the science community as to who is worthy of the word "theory" as well.

In other words, yes you're confirming all MY stereotypes. You're a mimic, a poser who thinks himself a master of science, but one who ignores the first fundamental discipline of the scientist. Never go into a problem looking to prove that which you've already decided is fact.

..and I really don't care a bit about your language issues. Nobody around here cares even if you can speak Klingon! It's not science.

Judged:

14

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Saint Louis, MO

#52637 Jun 25, 2014
With a little research into word definitions, I HAVE found that "hypothesis" can be interpreted as an untested theory, or it may be described as a more singular theoretical concept rather than a collective group compiled into a more general theory.

Semantics really. It's still scientific prejudice in most applied cases. It all depends on who is judging the legitimacy of your conditions for experimentation.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#52638 Jun 25, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You've already demonstrated that you have your sphincter in a singularity knot regarding the operations of a general fund. No need to exacerbate the problem......If there were a time warp down there, the flow of excrement might end up in an infinite loop which would be unpleasant for all of us.
It was a simple question, Anonymous, I'll repeat it now.
"How, specifically, do you feel your tax dollars subsidize marriage?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...

Your inability to provide a simple and direct answer tends to indicate that your initial assertion was nothing more than bullsh*t.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
anonymous

Fremont, CA

#52639 Jun 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a simple question, Anonymous, I'll repeat it now.
"How, specifically, do you feel your tax dollars subsidize marriage?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
Your inability to provide a simple and direct answer tends to indicate that your initial assertion was nothing more than bullsh*t.
..and I'll provide you your simple answer the last time you asked and I gave you an explanation.

YOU"RE WRONG!! DENIAL!!!! 14TH AMENDMENT!!! EXPERTS SAY THAT YOU MUST SHUT UP! MY PENIS!!! BLA! BLA! BLA!

Go sit on a stick, lides! I'm getting taxed. You're getting tax money from the general fund for fudge packing a fellow miscreant. As Bush Sr. once said, "This will not stand!".

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#52640 Jun 25, 2014
anonymous wrote:
..and I'll provide you your simple answer the last time you asked and I gave you an explanation.
YOU"RE WRONG!! DENIAL!!!! 14TH AMENDMENT!!! EXPERTS SAY THAT YOU MUST SHUT UP! MY PENIS!!! BLA! BLA! BLA!
Go sit on a stick, lides! I'm getting taxed. You're getting tax money from the general fund for fudge packing a fellow miscreant. As Bush Sr. once said, "This will not stand!".
Sorry, kiddo, you are inarticulately making arguments you lack the ability to support.

You are also making yourself look like an infantile idiot.

Well played.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#52641 Jun 25, 2014
Skippy wrote:
Everybody hoo don't have rational argument gets off this thread.
IF that's the case YOU should have NEVER showed up! LOL That's a fact Peanut Butter.....LOL
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#52642 Jun 25, 2014
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The forcing of gay lifestyle on American citizens, so why not on young children?
2. You have no data or facts that homosexual couples don't encourage the gay lifestyle on young children, it's just your theory isn't it.
3. It's not imipossible to train a child to do anything, it's the up bringing, in this case a homosexual one.
4. Why wouldn't a gay couple want their child to be like daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy., think about it, it's not crazy talk at all!
1. there is no such thing as a "gay" lifestyle
2. How does one collect negative data, you flaming moron
3. Yes it is impossible to train someone to be homosexual
4. Educated parents raise their children to be themselves
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#52643 Jun 25, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
..and I'll provide you your simple answer the last time you asked and I gave you an explanation.
YOU"RE WRONG!! DENIAL!!!! 14TH AMENDMENT!!! EXPERTS SAY THAT YOU MUST SHUT UP! MY PENIS!!! BLA! BLA! BLA!
Go sit on a stick, lides! I'm getting taxed. You're getting tax money from the general fund for fudge packing a fellow miscreant. As Bush Sr. once said, "This will not stand!".
The government is giving money for fudge packing?

OMG! Where do I sign up?

Oh yes it will stand, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#52644 Jun 25, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What stereotypes? I am talking about facts Maybe you refuse gay marriage because of religious fairy tales like 90% if the Americans do.
At its most basic essence marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.

Smile.

Judged:

16

16

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#52645 Jun 25, 2014
KiMare wrote:
At its most basic essence marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
Smile.
You keep making this witless argument, but you never support it with facts. Perhaps because you are too stupid to see that it is incorrect, and utterly irrelevant.

Tell me KiMare, can infertile couples legally marry, because if so, your assertion goes out the window.

Why don't you come back once you have come up with a valid and factually supported argument. Which is to say, when you become less of an imbecile.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#52646 Jun 25, 2014
If “evolutionary mating behavior” means having babies and having more babies, it is doubtful that marriage curtails that behavior, not with 7 billion people in the world. More apropos would be to assert that birth control (primarily), sex education, women’s reproductive rights, household economics (sometimes), government regulation (as in China), and even ss marriage are together more effective at curbing birth rates, whether to the married or to the unmarried .

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#52647 Jun 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep making this witless argument, but you never support it with facts. Perhaps because you are too stupid to see that it is incorrect, and utterly irrelevant.
Tell me KiMare, can infertile couples legally marry, because if so, your assertion goes out the window.
Why don't you come back once you have come up with a valid and factually supported argument. Which is to say, when you become less of an imbecile.
Everyone is an imbecile eh, lides? When you abuse a word like that it loses it's meaning.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#52648 Jun 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Everyone is an imbecile eh, lides? When you abuse a word like that it loses it's meaning.
No, just those who can't count to three, understand that three or more is greater than two, or advance an utterly irrelevant argument over and over.

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
Quick Guide to California Wineries - Go Tasting! 15 min howefortunate 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min Russell797 57,219
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 35 min Jacques Ottawa 207,449
News Justice Department opens investigation into Chi... 1 hr guest 2
News Lawmakers Warn Buffett's Coal May Hurt Californ... Feb 6 Solarman 1
Join Baphomet Ashram Brotherhood for Riches, Po... Feb 6 Brian 1
News California Politicians Have A Huge Financial In... Feb 6 Cob Coy 5
More from around the web