Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61394 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

#5557 Sep 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This should be good...
<quoted text>
What were you attempting to say?
<quoted text>
You are correct, your assertion is in fact, idiotic.
<quoted text>
Sorry charlie. Marriage, as it pertains to the state, is a protection of the law.
<quoted text>
Raising children is irrelevant. A couple, or even an individual, may raise children or not regardless of their marital status.
<quoted text>
You seem to be as ignorant of common sense a you do of the US Constitution.
Congratulations, you continue to make a fool of yourself.
Lides, you know exactly what I am saying. Playing dumb only exposes the foolishness of your position.

The last thing on the list of things that married people care about is 'the state'. This is how far from being qualified to dictate marriage a ss couples is.

Raising children is irrelevant? See my point above.

You are warping the Constitution the same way Roe vs Wade did. The Founders are rolling over in their graves.

Clearly the fool is you.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#5558 Sep 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

You are warping the Constitution the same way Roe vs Wade did. The Founders are rolling over in their graves.
Clearly the fool is you.
Drama queen.
You're a phony Christian, a gender elitist and an authority on nothing.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#5559 Sep 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Moreover, at its most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
...
I've read this statement from you at least a hundred time, but I was wondering if you would go into further detail about what you mean by "evolutionary mating behavior." I could mean several things.

When you refer to “evolutionary mating behavior” are you referring to the primate mating behavior that evolved over millions of years? For example, "mating behavior" as exhibited by our closest genetic primate relatives? Are you referring to behavior that leads only to procreation? or to all sexual intercourse, in general?

Or are you implying that marriage will constrain infidelity, and furthermore any conceptions that might arise from infidelity? And how would marriage constrain this behavior?

Do you think that “mating behavior” that occurred during the tens of thousands of years of human existence, and prior to the institution of marriage, was a negative event?(After all, YOU came from one of these mating behaviors.)

Do you think that marriage constrains mating behavior, if “mating behavior” means procreation?
Do you think “evolution”(speaking metaphorically here)“cares” about marriage, or is even constrained by marriage?

Do you think that an unwed, committed heterosexual couple constrains evolution? Or because they are unmarried, their mating behavior is more susceptible to evolution?

Also, wouldn't SS marriage be a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?

I'm genuinely curious about what you mean.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5560 Sep 16, 2013
Edio wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read this statement from you at least a hundred time, but I was wondering if you would go into further detail about what you mean by "evolutionary mating behavior." I could mean several things.
When you refer to “evolutionary mating behavior” are you referring to the primate mating behavior that evolved over millions of years? For example, "mating behavior" as exhibited by our closest genetic primate relatives? Are you referring to behavior that leads only to procreation? or to all sexual intercourse, in general?
Or are you implying that marriage will constrain infidelity, and furthermore any conceptions that might arise from infidelity? And how would marriage constrain this behavior?
Do you think that “mating behavior” that occurred during the tens of thousands of years of human existence, and prior to the institution of marriage, was a negative event?(After all, YOU came from one of these mating behaviors.)
Do you think that marriage constrains mating behavior, if “mating behavior” means procreation?
Do you think “evolution”(speaking metaphorically here)“cares” about marriage, or is even constrained by marriage?
Do you think that an unwed, committed heterosexual couple constrains evolution? Or because they are unmarried, their mating behavior is more susceptible to evolution?
Also, wouldn't SS marriage be a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
I'm genuinely curious about what you mean.
What do you think the statement means in the context of science?
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5561 Sep 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, dullard, is marriage a protection of the law in every state in the union?
Hey, Parse Bunny blockhead! Marriage isn't a legal protection. It's a civil contract, just like the phrase "civil union" states.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#5562 Sep 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think the statement means in the context of science?
It means you're a douche bag and a phony Christian, not to mention a gender elitist.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5563 Sep 16, 2013
Edio wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read this statement from you at least a hundred time, but I was wondering if you would go into further detail about what you mean by "evolutionary mating behavior." I could mean several things.
When you refer to “evolutionary mating behavior” are you referring to the primate mating behavior that evolved over millions of years? For example, "mating behavior" as exhibited by our closest genetic primate relatives? Are you referring to behavior that leads only to procreation? or to all sexual intercourse, in general?
Or are you implying that marriage will constrain infidelity, and furthermore any conceptions that might arise from infidelity? And how would marriage constrain this behavior?
Do you think that “mating behavior” that occurred during the tens of thousands of years of human existence, and prior to the institution of marriage, was a negative event?(After all, YOU came from one of these mating behaviors.)
Do you think that marriage constrains mating behavior, if “mating behavior” means procreation?
Do you think “evolution”(speaking metaphorically here)“cares” about marriage, or is even constrained by marriage?
Do you think that an unwed, committed heterosexual couple constrains evolution? Or because they are unmarried, their mating behavior is more susceptible to evolution?
Also, wouldn't SS marriage be a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
I'm genuinely curious about what you mean.
Uh, YEAH! Marriage constrains mating behavior. Forget the rest of that jabber. Infidelity is certainly grounds for divorce and if gays were true to their partners, then YES that means that the mating thing is over, unless you've got a test tube thing with a surrogate mother in the works.

Can't wait for the day that you can do the full bun in the oven thing without those messy females in the mix? Well, that wouldn't surprise me, but there are a lot of things you want that I consider a breach of scientific ethics.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#5564 Sep 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think the statement means in the context of science?
My thoughts concerning your statement are, I think, clearly expounded above. What do YOU think your statement means in the context of evolution?

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#5565 Sep 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, YEAH! Marriage constrains mating behavior. Forget the rest of that jabber. Infidelity is certainly grounds for divorce and if gays were true to their partners, then YES that means that the mating thing is over, unless you've got a test tube thing with a surrogate mother in the works.
Can't wait for the day that you can do the full bun in the oven thing without those messy females in the mix? Well, that wouldn't surprise me, but there are a lot of things you want that I consider a breach of scientific ethics.
What do YOU mean by mating behavior? Intercourse for the purpose of procreation? Or any sort of sexual acts? Please define your terms.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5566 Sep 16, 2013
Edio wrote:
<quoted text>
My thoughts concerning your statement are, I think, clearly expounded above. What do YOU think your statement means in the context of evolution?
No, you asked a lot of pointless questions that are out of context.

I don't think you are confused at all.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#5567 Sep 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you asked a lot of pointless questions that are out of context.
I don't think you are confused at all.
Smile.
Kind of like posting pointless opinions and then believing that they somehow alter the course of SSM.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5568 Sep 16, 2013
Edio wrote:
<quoted text>
What do YOU mean by mating behavior? Intercourse for the purpose of procreation? Or any sort of sexual acts? Please define your terms.
The word "mating" pretty much explains what I mean by mating behavior.

Do me a favor and don't bring up bonobos. We all know that the false evolutionists LOVE to talkity-talk-talk-talk about bonobos and their "fencing" behavior, what those of us in the human realm often call "bumping d!cks."

Two points:

1. Bonobos broke away from the Chimpanzee line long after the humans branched from the line. Chimpanzees don't engage in the same behavior as bonobos. There's no reason to assume that humans and bonobos share a common behavioral trait.

2. When examining behavior, it's far better to look at the niche rather than the genetic similarity. Humans are terrestrial. Bonobos and Chimps are not. A better comparison would be to compare human behavior to that of baboons. Baboons engage in symbolic mounting of members of the same sex but it is a sign of dominance, not a means of gratification.

All that being said, YOU tell ME what you mean when YOU talkity-talk-talk-talk about intercourse other than for the purpose of mating. I can already tell you, you're up a tree, both figuratively, and in your sense of social adaptation.

For a more in-depth and personal theory on the subject, I'll propose that social behavior is very largely a learned behavior. We all know it. That's why we keep trying to change people rather than eradicate them.

Psychologically, I propose that the algorithms in use by all the great ape lines is schematically similar, but the number values that define the short term memory and reflexive behavior of the species are the unique and guiding principals that define them.

It goes like this:

1 bit - Chimpanzee
2 bits - Gorilla
3 bits - Orangutan
4 bits - Australopithecine
5 bits - Bonobo
6 bits - Gibbon

Now, the catch is that the pattern involved has a weak link. When the bits are four or less, they are inherently stable and all of the species have a sort of intuitive way to transition the short term learning with long term intuitive forms of pattern recognition. Essentially, they all think "within the box".

The gibbon is a much different species than the other apes. It is on a different level of reflexive thinking that is great for living in trees, but does not really lend itself to problem solving as with the other ape species.

The bonobo isn't really a fully independent species as yet. It was not even defined as a separate species until the 20th century. Largely, it probably still is dependent on the Chimpanzee within, but it is otherwise a bizarre creature of a bit more intelligence, but is erratic and its sexual rituals are more of an act of insecurity than sociality.

The main reason is that the bonobo algorithm is based on a prime number that doesn't benefit from the stability of the lower values and it has a very difficult time finding order in the mental chaos. No matter how much it may want to, it cannot break free from the mindset of its cousin the chimp. All it can do is choose to think different when "in the box" doesn't work.

Now, I'm going to say that bonobos probably can be a good analogy to homosexuality, but I don't see them as a psychological path that our government and people should be endorsing. Thinking outside the box is good! But humanity comes from those that evolved on the number four! Very close to the number five, but more capable of thinking BEFORE acting. Very important! Very successful! And very much evolved beyond the basic algorithms of the apes.

We don't need "art for art's sake!" or "money for God's sake!" We need to remember to think before we act. That is a message that isn't learned by the loudest megaphone shouting down the rest....and we don't REALLY need to behave like baboons either, just because you want to talkity-talk-talk-talk about your erection! Get over yourself!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5571 Sep 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Lides, you know exactly what I am saying.
You said, "why require what a married couple must protect from?"
What exactly did you mean by this, because the sentence, on its own, makes no sense.
KiMare wrote:
Playing dumb only exposes the foolishness of your position.
I'm not playing dumb, I am pointing out that you authored a sentence so butchered as to render it incomprehensible.
KiMare wrote:
The last thing on the list of things that married people care about is 'the state'. This is how far from being qualified to dictate marriage a ss couples is.
Are you an idiot? If a married couple wishes to be protected by the law, they have an interest in the state. What are you, six?
KiMare wrote:
Raising children is irrelevant? See my point above.
It is. A couple need not be married to raise children. In fact, even single parents are allowed to legally adopt, which further illustrates the fallacy of your assertion.
KiMare wrote:
You are warping the Constitution the same way Roe vs Wade did. The Founders are rolling over in their graves.
No, I'm not. Read the 14th Amendment, idiot.
KiMare wrote:
Clearly the fool is you.
I'm not the one who doesn't understand the constitution and basic fairness.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5572 Sep 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Your premise was proven wrong. This was your statement.
<quoted text> You made the idiot statement, not me. No sense in trying to put a happy face on a major [email protected] up, Einstein.
Sorry, dearest twit. I stand by my statement because it is a FACT. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says/means/provides. Their decisions have the full force of the Constitution. That's the way our government was set up. It's been that way since 1789.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5573 Sep 17, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that nobody has ever published statistics about human promiscuity? I doubt that! It's the demographics of groups that nobody wants to touch, especially if there's one that involves an unpopular group, a large medical burden on the public and casual indulgences.
No, I'm betting that the Liberals don't talk about it because they don't like the idea that the public would reject expensive medical research that only makes life better for that group and a bunch of liberal researchers.
Of course there's exceptions to EVERYTHING. Statistics do matter though. Labeling it all as bigotry won't change a thing.
Then why can't you find them? I'll tell you why..... all the research says: gays are no more promiscuous that straights.
And promiscuity is not a valid reason for denying rights. You have issues with sex.... too bad, so sad.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5574 Sep 17, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
"same effect as the Constitution". One's an opinion. The other is a legal document.
SCOTUS creates decisions so it is implied that you think their decisions are the equivalent of creating laws.
Try a little less bluster and maybe a bit more communication in the name of clarity. Just what DO you think the Supreme Court has the autonomy to do on their own?
As I see it, it's the old adage about opinions and @holes! Everyone's got one and they all stink!
OMFG!

Let me see if I understand you.... you think SCOTUS decisions aren't law because they are called "opinions?" Seriously?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5575 Sep 17, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. It seems that you don't consider it fun to be publicly forced into a discussion on things that you don't think are appropriate to talk about with strangers. Imagine how others feel when a gay makes unwanted advances on them and the only solution is to contact a [email protected] liberal law enforcement bureaucrat who thinks it's all a joke.
....And yes! It's all a joke, if not a way to get yourself kicked out of a government job! Oh, yes! Please don't imagine that you don't have whiny, litigious gays just looking for a confrontation once they think they can get the law involved.
You don't think this is personal for those who aren't gay but it very much is, and you're not going to like the consequences. Ivory tower liberals won't help you when the public gets fed up with it all.
Well adjusted heteros will answer "No thank you, not interested."

If you make a big deal about it, that PROVES you have issues.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5576 Sep 17, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The word "mating" pretty much explains what I mean by mating behavior.
Do me a favor and don't bring up bonobos. We all know that the false evolutionists.... blah blah blah
False evolutionists??

Oh sweet wounded jesus, here it comes..... ridiculous babble from the lowered expectation crowd. Evolution is a FACT.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5577 Sep 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You said, "why require what a married couple must protect from?"
What exactly did you mean by this, because the sentence, on its own, makes no sense.
<quoted text>
I'm not playing dumb, I am pointing out that you authored a sentence so butchered as to render it incomprehensible.
<quoted text>
Are you an idiot? If a married couple wishes to be protected by the law, they have an interest in the state. What are you, six?
<quoted text>
It is. A couple need not be married to raise children. In fact, even single parents are allowed to legally adopt, which further illustrates the fallacy of your assertion.
<quoted text>
No, I'm not. Read the 14th Amendment, idiot.
<quoted text>
I'm not the one who doesn't understand the constitution and basic fairness.
Really Lides...

You dumb down on pretending you didn't assert that children must be 'required' to be considered.

A normal person would be embarrassed about silly blatant lies like that.

You also are well aware of SCOTUS rulings about marriage and children.

All you are doing is exposing the lack of character and concern for children that disqualify SS couples from marriage.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5578 Sep 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
All you are doing is exposing the lack of character and concern for children that disqualify SS couples from marriage.
All you are doing is denying reality. SS couples get LEGALLY married every day. For some nebulous reason, that makes you crazy, but my guess is, you were born that way.

Did you catch the article about 'chimeras' in the NYTimes today? You aren't so 'special' after 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 California attorney general pick pledges affron... 4 hr St Elmos Fire 4
News OK, so, pota s legal. Now what? 4 hr Willie Nelson 14
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Jacques in Ottawa 230,885
News Group says it has sued Dow over pesticide used ... 15 hr ThomasA 3
News University of California digs in to fight Trump... 20 hr tomin cali 1
News California Republican Party Official Alleges Vo... Wed YouDidntBuildThat 8
News 'Not My President': Protesters Rail Against Don... Wed Just Sayin 164
More from around the web