Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61390 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 11

AOL

#6290 Oct 6, 2013
Rev. Andrew Young said about marriage equality: "I think it would be consistent with our historic spirit of fairness and justice. But it also would be consistent with the spirit of grace and mercy as the path to peace that you judge not that you not be judged."
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6291 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>No. I asked you to prove that if legalized, polygamy would be 'so rare.'
Keep digging that hole. You look dumber by the second.
Your fear that if legalized polygamy would destabilize society is too ridiculous to bother with. But since when do we base equality on numbers of people being denied it?

When someone makes the ridiculous claim that same sex marriage would destabilize society you go into shock and outrage. Then you use the same argument yourself against poly marriage. Classic hypocrite.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6292 Oct 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your fear that if legalized polygamy would destabilize society is too ridiculous to bother with. But since when do we base equality on numbers of people being denied it?
When someone makes the ridiculous claim that same sex marriage would destabilize society you go into shock and outrage. Then you use the same argument yourself against poly marriage. Classic hypocrite.
They are entirely different arguments. Removing the gender restriction does not change marriage for opposite sex couples while removing the number restriction does. It requires changing the laws of marriage for everyone, unless you are proposing an entirely different set of laws for some and not others.

I'm curious how inheritance of property and social security would work for groups if they continue to add younger members as older members die off. Marriages could be never ending. Would Social Security be never ending as well? So many questions those who promote removing the number restriction won't even attempt to address...

Being a hypocrite is to promote something in which you do not really believe. It is you who is being hypocritical.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

[email protected]

#6293 Oct 6, 2013
So, Greg, you attended the Rockford School of Theology, huh? What a joke that place was. Too bad it was unable to sustain itself after it moved into the repurposed (but no less ugly) Greyhound bus station. I can only find three people who attended there. Two went on to eventually become pastors at hard-core fundamentalist Christian churches and one an aging ex-truck driver/landscaping "technician" with a lingering penchant for preaching regurgitated poetry and catch phrases who's delusional enough to think he can somehow slow the inevitable. Do you really believe that four years at a failed, non-accredited theology school makes you credible or respect-worthy? Do you honestly believe that you can have any sort of impact on what people think and believe with your particular approach? You don't matter to anyone on this forum, Greg. You're so easily dismissible as a zealot that your only real purpose here has become that of an entertainer and an unwitting target of mockery. Myopic and bereft of any capacity for empathy is no way to go through life, Greg. With retirement looming, consider returning to school and completing your education with more emphasis this time on English and government and less on zealotry.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6294 Oct 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The original post, to which I was responding, posited that same sex marriage should not be legal and that there was an inherent harm in a child being raised by same sex parents.
It is a logical comparison to question whether being raised by an irrational bigot, like a person who opposes equal protection of the law for fellow countrymen, would produce any better outcome in child rearing.
Were you any smarter, you might understand that.
I understood perfectly.

Anyone who prefers natural parents raising children, and a default mother and father if at all possible is not a bigot. They are protecting children and showing simple common sense.
reporter joe

Fremont, CA

#6295 Oct 6, 2013
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
If he's mistaken produce arguments to the contrary. I have used his posts to do research of my own and they are all easily verifiable. If you find his comments to be so laughable, as you say, display something that presents a solid argument.
He hasn't said anything. He only uses copy & paste to use other people's words. How do you argue with a parrot? If you have something, say it. If not, enjoy the show.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6296 Oct 6, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
So, Greg, you attended the Rockford School of Theology, huh? What a joke that place was. Too bad it was unable to sustain itself after it moved into the repurposed (but no less ugly) Greyhound bus station. I can only find three people who attended there. Two went on to eventually become pastors at hard-core fundamentalist Christian churches and one an aging ex-truck driver/landscaping "technician" with a lingering penchant for preaching regurgitated poetry and catch phrases who's delusional enough to think he can somehow slow the inevitable. Do you really believe that four years at a failed, non-accredited theology school makes you credible or respect-worthy? Do you honestly believe that you can have any sort of impact on what people think and believe with your particular approach? You don't matter to anyone on this forum, Greg. You're so easily dismissible as a zealot that your only real purpose here has become that of an entertainer and an unwitting target of mockery. Myopic and bereft of any capacity for empathy is no way to go through life, Greg. With retirement looming, consider returning to school and completing your education with more emphasis this time on English and government and less on zealotry.
I reopened a Congregational Church and Pastored it for twenty years. It was, for a time, the largest UCC Church on the Big Island. I retired after thirty years in ministry. Purchased and remodeled five homes. When the economy dropped, I drove truck for four years since I had two boys in college at the time. I now work in a business with two brother-in-laws. We do landscape installation, irrigation, hardscape and lawn fertilization/weed control. Did a Penn State extension course to get certified. I'm sixty this year. Pretty good I think.

Smile.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6298 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
They are entirely different arguments. Removing the gender restriction does not change marriage for opposite sex couples while removing the number restriction does. It requires changing the laws of marriage for everyone, unless you are proposing an entirely different set of laws for some and not others.
I'm curious how inheritance of property and social security would work for groups if they continue to add younger members as older members die off. Marriages could be never ending. Would Social Security be never ending as well? So many questions those who promote removing the number restriction won't even attempt to address...
Being a hypocrite is to promote something in which you do not really believe. It is you who is being hypocritical.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...

http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6299 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
They are entirely different arguments. Removing the gender restriction does not change marriage for opposite sex couples while removing the number restriction does. It requires changing the laws of marriage for everyone, unless you are proposing an entirely different set of laws for some and not others.
I'm curious how inheritance of property and social security would work for groups if they continue to add younger members as older members die off. Marriages could be never ending. Would Social Security be never ending as well? So many questions those who promote removing the number restriction won't even attempt to address...
Being a hypocrite is to promote something in which you do not really believe. It is you who is being hypocritical.
The argument for allowing polygamy has much in common with the argument for letting gays marry. If consenting adults who prefer polygamy can do everything else a husband and wife can do—have sex, live together, buy property, and bring up children jointly—why should they be prohibited from legally committing themselves to the solemn duties that attach to marriage? How is society worse off if these informal relationships are formalized and pushed toward permanence?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6300 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>No. I asked you to prove that if legalized, polygamy would be 'so rare.'
Keep digging that hole. You look dumber by the second.
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three or more consenting adults.

Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6301 Oct 6, 2013
Marriage. There is no one right way. And more and more people agree:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-polygam...
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#6302 Oct 6, 2013
reporter joe wrote:
<quoted text>He hasn't said anything. He only uses copy & paste to use other people's words. How do you argue with a parrot? If you have something, say it. If not, enjoy the show.
Everyone who posts facts on here uses articles from the internet to do so. You don't have an argument. As I said, I checked out his sources and he is posting good sources. You can't argue because you have nothing to back up your comments and they are pointless anyway. I you don't have anything worth while to offer to support your opinion, you're the one who should observe silence so that intelligent people with something to contribute can debate the topic.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6303 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>No. I asked you to prove that if legalized, polygamy would be 'so rare.'
Keep digging that hole. You look dumber by the second.
You fear polygamy. Just like some fear same sex marriage. We understand.

Just like you clowns tell SSM detractors to "prove it will harm you", the burden is now on you to prove polygamy will harm you, not on me to prove it will not.

There is ample evidence polygamy will remain rare if legalized. But that's not the point. That's your straw man. I won't bite.

Your doomsday scenario is ridiculous, as are your ad hominem insults of my intelligence.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6304 Oct 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument for allowing polygamy has much in common with the argument for letting gays marry. If consenting adults who prefer polygamy can do everything else a husband and wife can do—have sex, live together, buy property, and bring up children jointly—why should they be prohibited from legally committing themselves to the solemn duties that attach to marriage? How is society worse off if these informal relationships are formalized and pushed toward permanence?
Again, removing the gender restriction does not change marriage for opposite sex couples.

Removing the number restriction does.

Again, it requires changing the 1,138 federal laws of marriage for everyone, unless you are proposing an entirely different set of laws for some and not others, and how would that work?

I'm curious how inheritance of property and social security would work for groups, especially if they continue to add younger members as older members die off. Marriages could be never ending. Would Social Security be never ending as well? So many questions those who promote removing the number restriction won't even attempt to address, because they know it shows removing the number restriction changes marrage for everyone to some as yet undefined legal and social structure. jj

History has shown, such arragnements favor the wealthy at the expence of everyone else. Whatever it may be, it is in no way equal to what we currently have. It is something entirely different legally and socially
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#6305 Oct 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I understood perfectly.
Anyone who prefers natural parents raising children, and a default mother and father if at all possible is not a bigot. They are protecting children and showing simple common sense.
A child is happiest in a loving home, regardless of the type of family they live in. People like you, who cannot accept the fact that there are other type of perfectly legitimate families than the traditional union are the ones not showing common sense and, quite commonly, are the cause of the depression and conflict in children's lives because of their narrow point of view that doesn't allow for anything other than their opinion to exist
without deliberately causing controversy.
reporter joe

Fremont, CA

#6306 Oct 6, 2013
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone who posts facts on here uses articles from the internet to do so.
Right. But, they use the articles to bolster their point. He posts the articles alone, on most of his posts, without adding anything of his own. You're not agreeing with him, you are agreeing with the counless people he is quoting.

Show me ownership of Topix and I'll hush.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6308 Oct 6, 2013
Janitor is correct, the research shows the important variable is the relationship between parent and child, not gender.

"Many studies find a higher rate of health and mental health problems among lesbian, gay and bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens than in heterosexual youth, often identifyind social rejection as the culprit. A new study of lesbians, gays and bisexuals, identifies another important variable: parental rejection.
The research, published in the January Pediatrics (Vol. 123, No. 1), found that LGB adults who reported high rates of parental rejection in their teens were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to have had unprotected sex than LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection, reports the study team, headed by Caitlin Ryan, PhD, of San Francisco State University.

"Because families play such a critical role in child and adolescent development, it is not surprising that adverse, punitive and traumatic reactions from parents and caregivers would have such a negative influence on [young people's] risk behaviors and health status as young adults," the authors write.

The study, conducted on 224 white and Latino LGB young adults, is the first to identify and measure specific parental rejecting behaviors and link them to health and mental health outcomes in LGB youth, Ryan says. The work is part of a larger project called the Family Acceptance Project ( http://familyproject.sfsu.edu ). Ryan is using the findings to develop interventions to help families from various ethnicities better support their LGBT children, she says.

Preliminary results are promising: "We've seen that families can grow and become more supportive once they've learned how their words, actions and behaviors affect their LGBT children," she says."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/03/orientatio...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6309 Oct 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I understood perfectly.
Anyone who prefers natural parents raising children, and a default mother and father if at all possible is not a bigot. They are protecting children and showing simple common sense.
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
A child is happiest in a loving home, regardless of the type of family they live in. People like you, who cannot accept the fact that there are other type of perfectly legitimate families than the traditional union are the ones not showing common sense and, quite commonly, are the cause of the depression and conflict in children's lives because of their narrow point of view that doesn't allow for anything other than their opinion to exist
without deliberately causing controversy.
BS.

You throw children under the bus, and your own mother and father.

What a despicable disgrace on your own parents!

A child is happiest with their mother and father, even if they have faults.

Every father's day or mother's day, a child in a ss couple home will be horribly reminded of what they were deprived of for the sake of a pretend family in a fake marriage. If possible, they will seek out the missing parent ASAP.

You are an idiot. A sick bastard idiot at that.

Leave children alone!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6310 Oct 6, 2013
Further documentation in support of the previous assertion, from Hawaii Supreme Court testamony:

"Dr. Eggebeen (witness against marriage equality) also conceded that "gay and lesbian couples can, and do, make excellent parents" "that they are capable of raising a healthy child", and "that children of same sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive benefits of marriage".

Dr. Charlotte Patterson: there was "no data or research which establishes that gay fathers and lesbian mothers are less capable of being good parents than non-gay people.

Dr. David Brodzinsky: The issue is not the structural variable, biological versus nonbiological, one parent versus two parent. The issue is really the process variables, how children are cared for, is the child provided warmth, it the child provided consistency of care, is the child provided a stimulated environment, is the e child given support.... and when you take a look at structural variables, there's not all that much support that structural variable in and of themselves are all that important.

Dr. Pepper Shwartz: "the primary quality of parenting is not the parenting structure, or biology, but is the nurturing relationship between parent and child."
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#6311 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, removing the gender restriction does not change marriage for opposite sex couples.
Polygamy won't either.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 64,312
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 hr loose cannon 243,098
News California is No. 2 in - judicial hellhole' ranks Fri Concave 1
News Firefighter fatality reported at huge Californi... Fri Concave 1
News Countdown clock ticking for Trump, Republicans Fri Concave 54
NJ Senator Stephen Sweeney arrested Thu joey 1
Ben Morgan of Facebook (Apr '17) Dec 14 Kayante 2
More from around the web