Gay marriage

There are 20 comments on the Mar 28, 2013, Los Angeles Times story 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.

Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#8134 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The law is unconstitutional, but you are not REALLY married since ss marriage is an oxymoron.
Everyone knows that moron.
Always with the oxymoron word. Is that the only big word you know, and you think it sounds impressive. All your saying is, in your opinion, same sex marriages aren't valid. Everyone knows that moron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8135 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No one quoted was anti happy.
<quoted text>
But still wining on state constitutional amendments.
I guess you missed Prop 8 being overturned by the SCOTUS.

It's only a matter of time before the remaining 29 constitutional bans are overturned.

But not for polygamy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8136 Oct 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, gay people can legally marry one other consenting non-related adult, just like any man or woman can.
At least you're finally getting a clue.
First cousins are related, and they can marry in several states even in gender segregated marriage states. Let's do some fact checking before you answer please.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8137 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY reason to limit marriage to two people is the likelihood of children.
When children are removed from consideration as mutually sterile gays demand, the number of participants and the relationship of the participants are irrelevant.
However, at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement is ridiculous no matter how many times you repeat it. Gays aren't mutually sterile, and the fact that they don't have children isn't any different than a straight couple who don't have children. And, since they don't have children how could children be a factor in it at all. If two gays marry and bring children from a previous marriage they have been shown to consistently raise them well and the children have successful lives, in most cases. the only time this isn't true is when people like you make their lives miserable by attacking their families. And, since gays can have children with a surrogate, the whole sterile routine you keep pushing is simply not true.
You should reevaluate your own sanity, it's slipping.
1. So you concede about polygamy. Smart move.

2. No ss couple has ever mutually procreated. NEVER. NOT ONE TIME. Really dumb claim.

3. There is a huge difference between a medical hindrance to procreation and a complete inability to procreate within your orientation. Not to mention the difference between two genders and the duplication of only one.

4. Studies of default heterosexual families (foster, step, adoptive and single) show a significant drop in child well-being. A ss couple with the additional negative of missing a parent gender can only be worse. No discrimination, just common sense.

You said something about re-evaluating sanity?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8138 Oct 26, 2013
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
Always with the oxymoron word. Is that the only big word you know, and you think it sounds impressive. All your saying is, in your opinion, same sex marriages aren't valid. Everyone knows that moron.
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.

Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.

It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.

It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.

It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.

It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.

It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.

It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.

All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.

It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8139 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First cousins are related, and they can marry in several states even in gender segregated marriage states. Let's do some fact checking before you answer please.
As you note, the same applies to same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

Couples being the key word.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8140 Oct 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.

Guess it's not so absurd after all...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8141 Oct 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Guess it's not so absurd after all...
Men can be lesbians too. What a world.....and to think just a few decades ago a "gay man" was a womanizer! My oh my how times change.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8142 Oct 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
No, they were sued for violating state public accommodation laws. That you can't understand the difference is why you anti-gays keep losing in court.
They weren't anti-gay, they all served gays before. They are anti-same sex marriage and have a constitutional right not to participate in same sex wedding rituals.

If you don't want to be sued for not attending a same sex wedding, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8143 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Guess it's not so absurd after all...
Gee, nothing changed about reality. Looks like you are not really married, and don't deserve the rights and benefits of marriage...

Man up pussy!
Rosa Winkel

Australia

#8144 Oct 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Guess it's not so absurd after all...
The only thing that's absurd is that thing and it's pathetic attempts to write poetry. LOL

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8145 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They weren't anti-gay, they all served gays before. They are anti-same sex marriage and have a constitutional right not to participate in same sex wedding rituals.
If you don't want to be sued for not attending a same sex wedding, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Except of course they weren't sued for not participating in a same-sex wedding.

They were sued for refusing to provide a service to a same-sex couple which they provide to opposite-sex couples.

That violates state public accommodation laws.

Don't want to get sued, then don't violate public accommodation laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8146 Oct 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Men can be lesbians too. What a world.....and to think just a few decades ago a "gay man" was a womanizer! My oh my how times change.
Men can be lesbians?

That's a new one.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#8148 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.
Facts:
Still married here
Friends honor that
Family honors that
Federal government honors that

You love to say that words define reality. The above statements are OUR reality. You, on the other hand, are not part of our reality and so your opinions don't matter.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8149 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>....
If you don't want to be sued for not attending a same sex wedding, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Just like we should have prevented interracial couples form marrying to protect the rights of bigoted business owners who didn't approve?

You never learn, do you?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8150 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY reason to limit marriage to two people is the likelihood of children.
When children are removed from consideration as mutually sterile gays demand, the number of participants and the relationship of the participants are irrelevant.
However, at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
More unsubstantiated bullshit straight from the factory.

I swear, if brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8151 Oct 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
<quoted text>
Gee, nothing changed about reality. Looks like you are not really married, and don't deserve the rights and benefits of marriage...
Man up pussy!
Insanity: repeating the same lies and expecting a different outcome.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8152 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They weren't anti-gay, they all served gays before. They are anti-same sex marriage and have a constitutional right not to participate in same sex wedding rituals.
There's no such right, shit-for-brains.

It's amusing how you make up rights, but ignore the ones we DO have.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8153 Oct 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
Facts:
Will be totally missed by KiMare. They seem to live in their own fantasy world where they think they are entitled to their own facts.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8154 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They weren't anti-gay, they all served gays before. They are anti-same sex marriage and have a constitutional right not to participate in same sex wedding rituals.
Brian, if they are anti-same sex marriage, then it is their right not to marry someone of the same sex. There is no right to deny service to someone because they are gay and marrying their same sex partner. Just as there is no right of a business owner to deny service on the basis of religion, race, sex, etc.

A business is a place of public accommodation, and must make its services available to anyone who comes through their doors. Providing a service for an individual, couple, or group of people who hold other beliefs in no way infringes upon the free exercise of religion of the proprietor of the business. Only a fool would claim otherwise.

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) 14 min Jacques Ottawa 187,447
News Anti-gay initiative puts California attorney ge... 1 hr Chacheer 14
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Al the Bore Gore 52,903
News A look at California's drought 1 hr the Fear tator 10
News Robert Kennedy, Jr. is right about vaccines: A ... 11 hr friend 2
News Vaccines Save Lives. 14 hr ITS VACCINES 1
Cougar Dating in California 20 hr NSA for fun 9
More from around the web