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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8580 Nov 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I never claimed they should be.
But men & women SHOULD be treated equally under the law.
Please make up your mind.

Can the law treat men and women differently based on the situation?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8581 Nov 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please make up your mind.
Can the law treat men and women differently based on the situation?
Based of the situation yes, but not if the law is based solely on their gender.

Example-

All men can vote, all women can't= unconstitutional.

A 42 y/o man can vote, a 17 y/o woman can't= constitutional.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8582 Nov 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Based of the situation yes, but not if the law is based solely on their gender.
Example-
All men can vote, all women can't= unconstitutional.
A 42 y/o man can vote, a 17 y/o woman can't= constitutional.
Equal means both men and woman meet the same physical standards.

Equal means that all orientations are housed in the same quarters.

Equal means they both are equally liable for the draft.

That's a start of denying gender/orientation distinctions.

You were saying?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8583 Nov 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Based of the situation yes, but not if the law is based solely on their gender.
Example-
All men can vote, all women can't= unconstitutional.
A 42 y/o man can vote, a 17 y/o woman can't= constitutional.
So should the law mandate an equal number of urinals be placed in both male and female locker rooms? Or is that an example of a law based see soley based on gender?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8584 Nov 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal means both men and woman meet the same physical standards.
Equal means that all orientations are housed in the same quarters.
Equal means they both are equally liable for the draft.
That's a start of denying gender/orientation distinctions.
You were saying?
That's right.....the draft! Should women have to register with selective service?
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8585 Nov 3, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never argued that same sex couples require suspect classification. I have argued that they are entitled to equal protection of the law to marry.
Do try to keep up, otherwise you only succeed in making a fool of yourself, as you did here.
Can you offer any legitimate governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? You failed thus far to offer any such justification.
<quoted text>
And the idiocy of your argument is quite amusing.
<quoted text>
KiMare, get a grip. 45 states allow gay adoption. Deal with it.
<quoted text>
KiMare, you have yet to offer any study that shows that same sex [parents, adoptive parents, or any other parenting structure than two birth parents is in any way harmful to the best interests of the child.
Your argument is based upon the assumption that being raised by birth parents is preferable, however that notion, in addition to being unproven, is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Some gay couples marry with no intention whatsoever of raising children.
Do try to stay on topic. It's ironic that you accuse others of dishonesty when you are the one offering outright irrelevant lies.
<quoted text>
Is that the best you have? Not exactly a terribly intelligent attack.
Parse..... Bunny!..... Write......in......coherent... ...conversational......paragra ph....format!!!....... I'm......not.....going.....to. ....chase......your.......rand om,.....shallow,......sound... ...bite,......rants......aroun d......the.....discussion..... ..thread!......

Period!! ;)
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8586 Nov 3, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never argued that same sex couples require suspect classification. I have argued that they are entitled to equal protection of the law to marry.
Do try to keep up, otherwise you only succeed in making a fool of yourself, as you did here.
Can you offer any legitimate governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? You failed thus far to offer any such justification.
<quoted text>
And the idiocy of your argument is quite amusing.
<quoted text>
KiMare, get a grip. 45 states allow gay adoption. Deal with it.
<quoted text>
KiMare, you have yet to offer any study that shows that same sex [parents, adoptive parents, or any other parenting structure than two birth parents is in any way harmful to the best interests of the child.
Your argument is based upon the assumption that being raised by birth parents is preferable, however that notion, in addition to being unproven, is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Some gay couples marry with no intention whatsoever of raising children.
Do try to stay on topic. It's ironic that you accuse others of dishonesty when you are the one offering outright irrelevant lies.
<quoted text>
Is that the best you have? Not exactly a terribly intelligent attack.
By the way, Mr. Green Jeans! "Suspect Classification" is the the direct link to "Close Scrutiny", your favorite buzz word! That's the point you KEEP DENYING is the basis of how the "Equal Protection" clause actually is interpreted.

I don't really care if you have the reading comprehension of a radish. Just don't expect the legal system to write in Dr. Seuss meter to suit your parsed up one-fish-two-fish-red-fish-blu e-fish nuttiness!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8587 Nov 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You attempt to limit marriage to a contract managed by lawyers. REALLY??? Only a gay would make such a stupid claim.
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.
He's making a list and repeats it a lot! Gonna work out who's entitled and who's not! Christian bigot is stealing the gubbermint!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8588 Nov 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Parse..... Bunny!..... Write......in......coherent... ...conversational......paragra ph....format!!!....... I'm......not.....going.....to. ....chase......your.......rand om,.....shallow,......sound... ...bite,......rants......aroun d......the.....discussion..... ..thread!......
Period!! ;)
Hmm. Folks get yelled at for not responding to every comment in a long post, and then they get yelled at when they try to respond to everything.

Can't win.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8589 Nov 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
..... Keeping marriage one man and one woman recognizes gender inequality and tolerance. Reason Two, sex differentiation in biology, sociology, anthropology, law and culture.
So, the best way to make sure that men and women are viewed as unequal in every way is to make sure that gay people can't marry?

How does that make sense?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8590 Nov 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
He's making a list and repeats it a lot! Gonna work out who's entitled and who's not! Christian bigot is stealing the gubbermint!
He's good at that.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8591 Nov 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
He's making a list and repeats it a lot! Gonna work out who's entitled and who's not! Christian bigot is stealing the gubbermint!
The ignorant bigot is you.

I 'made' no list, I simply noted reality.

are you asserting that reality conforms with Christianity?

Just how is noting reality stealing anything?

Snicker.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8592 Nov 4, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm. Folks get yelled at for not responding to every comment in a long post, and then they get yelled at when they try to respond to everything.
Can't win.
No, I guess you can't. Context is just as important as providing a response. It's like that post was even addressed just to me. He's blending his responses to more than one poster and I don't like the implied association.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8593 Nov 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The ignorant bigot is you.
I 'made' no list, I simply noted reality.
are you asserting that reality conforms with Christianity?
Just how is noting reality stealing anything?
Snicker.
He's making a list, that's just a @hitmist! Claims it's reality when hiding gubbermint @sses he's kissed. Christian bigot is stealing entitlements.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8594 Nov 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You know how civilized behavior is good so a value that men and women are different so women and children to the lifeboats first is a good thing? Same sex marriage is bad exactly the way recognizing male/female differences is good.
Well, it does at least allow us to see the bigots in our society who would hold fellow citizens as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.
Brian_G wrote:
The first two female marines completed the field hike exercise. Hundreds of female marines have been injured on extreme field hikes. I want marines that meet standards and volunteer, not women forced into combat units by reducing standards.
Brian, women who chose to join the Marines are free to make that choice. I don't think I would disparage them for choosing to serve their country, they are still Marines and could easily best you without raising a sweat.
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is just like not drafting daughters, mothers, wives, sisters and girlfriends.
Brian, this may be the dumbest thing you have ever said.
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman recognizes gender inequality and tolerance. Reason Two, sex differentiation in biology, sociology, anthropology, law and culture.
Brian, why don't you come back when you've grown up. None of your rationalizations is a valid reason to deny a same sex couple equal protection of the law to marry. In fact, as time passes, your arguments seem to become less and less rational, as well as less and less relevant.
Carl from Pittsfield

Pittsfield, MA

#8595 Nov 4, 2013
Please come back from Georgetown! I miss our walks down Spring Street

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8596 Nov 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal means both men and woman meet the same physical standards.
Equal means that all orientations are housed in the same quarters.
Equal means they both are equally liable for the draft.
That's a start of denying gender/orientation distinctions.
You were saying?
I agree, those inequities are unconstitutional and should be removed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8597 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So should the law mandate an equal number of urinals be placed in both male and female locker rooms? Or is that an example of a law based see soley based on gender?
Why would you have a law requiring urinals in female locker room?

What state has ever passed that law?

Where is there a constitutional right to use a urinal?

Laws can recognize the difference in gender; they just can't discriminate based solely on gender.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8598 Nov 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right.....the draft! Should women have to register with selective service?
Of course they should.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8599 Nov 4, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, those inequities are unconstitutional and should be removed.
Separate housing and bathrooms ARE based solely on gender.

Normal people would be abhorrent at drafting women.

Standards for soldiers ARE being feminized.

You sacrifice the safety of our nation for a fallacious equality. Traitorous.

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) 36 min hojo 64,311
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 hr loose cannon 243,098
News California is No. 2 in - judicial hellhole' ranks 22 hr Concave 1
News Firefighter fatality reported at huge Californi... 22 hr Concave 1
News Countdown clock ticking for Trump, Republicans 22 hr Concave 54
NJ Senator Stephen Sweeney arrested Thu joey 1
Ben Morgan of Facebook (Apr '17) Thu Kayante 2
More from around the web