Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61384 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8414 Oct 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove that the children raised by gay parents do better if their parents are unmarried? That's the only question, here.
So how does calling a same sex couple's, only one of which can be the child's biological parent, relationship "marriage" significantly improve the quality of the child's childhood?
Could this reasoning be applied to plural marriage families, where at least both biological parents are present?
We already know that there is no difference between children raised by stable gay couples and stable straight couples. That's not the debate, and there is no push to prevent gay couples from raising children, either their own, or children they legally adopt.
How do "we know this" when the research is very limited, as are the number of subjects available for research?
This about marriage, and it's benefits to families and kids.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8415 Oct 31, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>So, you're just going to overlook the statement I replied to and start building strawmen?
"There is STILL no evidence children raised by same-sex couples fair any worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples."
In response to this I pointed out one. You know as well as I do that there are millions more.
And, yes, there are kids raised by straight parents that are fukced up, but I didn't say there weren't. However, I still believe that kids raised by queers start their lives with two strikes against them.
What you believe is irrelevant.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8416 Oct 31, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
Queers try to skirt Oklahoma laws and it backfires. Damn, I love this state. The rest of the country should take note. LMFAO !
http://kfor.com/2013/10/23/new-drivers-licens...
And yet the first same-sex couple got legally married IN OKLAHOMA by the Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8417 Oct 31, 2013
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Wishful thinking on your part. On what grounds? Same sex marriage is not legal nor recognized in the state of Oklahoma. She got married in Iowa, so she should live in Iowa if she wants it recognized.
And yet a same-sex couple from the Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes WAS legally married in Oklahoma, and will get all the federal rights & benefits of marriage!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8418 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If two same gendered parents are good, three are better.
If that's how you want to raise your kids, that's certainly your option.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8419 Oct 31, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately the courts have thus far been reticent to use the FF&C clause to force states to recognizes marriages from other states.

More likely these remaining bans will be overturned using due process & equal protection arguments.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#8420 Oct 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't run a foster center.
You should know about a pedophile though, right?
I wouldn't know, But I'm sure YOU could tell us all about it, POS..

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8421 Oct 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
A nuclear family tops all other default families.
Unless you are suggesting it is logical to assert that depriving children of a gender and at least one natural parent, then duplicating the other is just is equal to a mother and father?
I suggest you are one messed up sick person.
<quoted text>
"Nope"? That's your argument?
I already posted proof.
Damn you are one idiot.
Ss couples are still only ever mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage. Hawaii did nothing to change that. Maybe one more state???
Smirk.
Nope, you provided no evidence of that whatsoever, but it was a pretty website you linked to...

Yes, we'll be getting one more state, then another, then another, until we have all 50 states with marriage equality.

And there's STILL nothing you can do about it, which is why you're so frustrated. Well that and your crusty rusty musty dusty mangina...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8422 Oct 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, the state is incapable of violating reality or reason???
I posted a GOVERNMENT study that clearly states that traditional nuclear families provide better outcomes than any default family situation. The government contradicts it's OWN study!
Congratulations, you have proven once again that you are so terribly bright.
Snicker.
Except of course it DIDN'T state anything of the sort.

Oh dear, you failed yet again to stop us from marrying and getting all the rights & benefits of marriage.

AND you failed to stop us from using your tax dollars to support married same-sex couples & our families.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8423 Oct 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Because all marriage law before the 21st century defined marriage as male/female. I've never claimed homosexuality is learned, that's Quest's error, not mine. I claim responsible parenthood is learned and male/female marriage reinforces that lesson.
As does male/male marriages and female/female marriages.

Gender has nothing to do with responsible parenthood.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8424 Oct 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
According to lides, "parents who teach their children to be responsible for the children they produce, and to marry before having children" are bigots:
<quoted text>
Except of course Lides never said that at all.

ALL parents regardless of gender combination should teach their children to be responsible for the children they produce and to marry before having children.

That's why we're changing the state marriage laws to enable same-sex couples to marry BEFORE having children.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8425 Oct 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition."
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
Hey look, even the racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-adoption bigot finally got one right!

Congrats!

The remaining state marriage bans will be overturned on due process and/or equal protection grounds.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8426 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
At the heart of that extended family is "...the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
And now at the heart of some of those extended families are legally married same-sex couples who ensure the same thing.

What's your point?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8427 Oct 31, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is about gays getting tax breaks and legal recognition for a behavior that should be classified as a MENTAL DISORDER. It has NOTHING to do with families. Why don't you stop lying.
Go ahead and bluster! Cite all the "scientific" references you want! The gubbermint also promises us that the NSA doesn't spy on Americans....and they CERTAINLY don't do it as a tool of political doctrine enforcement.
Reasonable people let obsessive-compulsives take control of the country. They are going to pay for that mistake. You're just an important object lesson for malcontents who just want to break things. Let those bums pay the price, but not all single people.
Yeah, well you'll just have to get over it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#8428 Oct 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Second, statistically, natural parents provide the best setting by far.
Let's see your data.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8429 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So how does calling a same sex couple's, only one of which can be the child's biological parent, relationship "marriage" significantly improve the quality of the child's childhood?
Could this reasoning be applied to plural marriage families, where at least both biological parents are present?
<quoted text>
How do "we know this" when the research is very limited, as are the number of subjects available for research?
This about marriage, and it's benefits to families and kids.
Marriage provides the same legal protections for children raised by same-sex couples as by opposite-sex couples.

Denying same-sex couples the rights & legal protection of marriage only harms the children they are going to raise regardless.

No, it can't be applied to plural marriage families because of the inherent harm to women & children in plural families.

Correct, it's about marriage and its benefits to families and kids, regardless of the gender of those 2 parents.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8430 Oct 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Smirking when you don't know the meaning of a simple word isn't rational.
And very few people are going to agree that folks can't lose a spouse and remarry, or divorce and remarry, because that would make them a "default" family. Most folks also agree that gay couples should be able to marry.
Why do you look down on divorced folks and blended families? It's really none of your business, unless that divorce and remarriage is your own, or your new spouse's.
Blondie, I posted a government study that proved the fact. Your being offended by reality doesn't change one thing.

And losing the argument and then claiming it is none of my business is silly childishness.

Smile.
Carl from Pittsfield

Pittsfield, MA

#8431 Oct 31, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you wish to prove that you are dumb too, Pietro?
You established that some time ago.
The reality remains that if the only argument that one has against same sex marriage is traditional families, they have no argument at all.
I love you in your tux and scruffy beard. Please let me come to Georgetown

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8432 Oct 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL parents regardless of gender combination should teach their children to be responsible for the children they produce and to marry before having children.
That's why we're changing the state marriage laws to enable same-sex couples to marry BEFORE having children.
Ohhhhhhh....SO THAT'S IT! All those pregnant gay men out there, their impregnators took off, left them all alone. If only marriage was available nationwide for these poor souls, then they could become honest men!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8433 Oct 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage provides the same legal protections for children raised by same-sex couples as by opposite-sex couples.
Provides the children with a legal mother and father?
Denying same-sex couples the rights & legal protection of marriage only harms the children they are going to raise regardless.
If that's the case any adult combination raising children should have legal marriage protection.
No, it can't be applied to plural marriage families because of the inherent harm to women & children in plural families.
From treating those families as second class citizens, robbing them of their dignity. Therein lies the harm. A man can marry, father children with his wife, and later divorce her. He can then remarry, and father children with his second wife. Perfectly acceptable, but if he, with the consent of the women of course, chooses not to divorce his first wife, and takes in a second wife, that's not acceptable? The children are less worthy of the legal protection that marriage brings, is that your contention?
Silly me, you probably think it's okay for two men to mix their sperm, so as not to know who the bio dad is, buy and egg, and rent a womb. That perfectly fine, right? Just not two wives at a time.

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) 3 hr Guinness Drunkard 63,972
News Californiaa s anti-Trump `resistancea bills: Wh... 4 hr Thank You Doctor 19
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 hr WelbyMD 242,611
News California Attorney General: Constitution, Rule... Wed Wildchild 2
News CommuniCare reports its at risk of losing feder... Wed Concave 4
News APNewsBreak: Millions of Californians on hook f... Wed Geraldo Del La Fuego 9
News First year of community college could soon be f... Sep 19 Concave 1
More from around the web