Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61391 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.

Poof

Rock Island, IL

#8824 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Embarrassingly silly isn't it?
Pastor Greg, I ahve been reading all about you. Mercy you are a bad little boi. Stealing money from a Church, stealing another mans wife. Fired from a trucking company for picking up hookers. You make Jesus cry

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#8825 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's beneficial to the couple because they share expenses. Then they get additional breaks from the government. Singles are screwed.
.
Yeah, they should couple up.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8826 Nov 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, they should couple up.
You got yours, screw everybody else, right?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#8827 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You got yours, screw everybody else, right?
No Pastor Greg, that's your mantra.
First American

Indianapolis, IN

#8828 Nov 9, 2013
dispite our personal beliefs on being Gay , we have to think about this country it was founded on freedom.Its not hurting anyone for Gay couples to marry. They deserve happiness and families despite our personal beliefs. it isnt fair for the government to make decisions based upon what is morally correct God knows politicans most of them are crooks anyway.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8829 Nov 9, 2013
First American wrote:
dispite our personal beliefs on being Gay , we have to think about this country it was founded on freedom.Its not hurting anyone for Gay couples to marry. They deserve happiness and families despite our personal beliefs. it isnt fair for the government to make decisions based upon what is morally correct God knows politicans most of them are crooks anyway.
So does that mean other forms of marriage should also be allowed?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8830 Nov 9, 2013
First American wrote:
dispite our personal beliefs on being Gay , we have to think about this country it was founded on freedom.Its not hurting anyone for Gay couples to marry. They deserve happiness and families despite our personal beliefs. it isnt fair for the government to make decisions based upon what is morally correct God knows politicans most of them are crooks anyway.
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. Ss marriage is an oxymoron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8831 Nov 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sooooooooo what,.one chooses what behavior to engage in, what "identity", sexual, or,otherwise to adopt, with whom one wishes to associate with, etc. Those are all choices.
True.

Irrelevant, but true.

Equal protection of the law still applies, even to behaviors which are choices- i.e. religion, marriage, voting, etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8832 Nov 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So then it will be all fifty states have rejected marriage conjugality as the foundations of the marital relationship. Next up to be rejected, monogamy. Tune in tomorrow.
Monogamy has ALREADY been rejected by the majority of heterosexuals; hence the 50%+ divorce rate.
First American

Charlestown, IN

#8833 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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. Ss marriage is an oxymoron.
What if your child was homosexual? Do you want them to have their dreams shattered over something they can not control? i am not going to pretend i even understand homosexuality, But if my child was to be homosexual i would march in the parade right along with them. every man and woman is someones son or daughter.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8834 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm asking what government interest is served for any person.
2. All kinds of prejudicial issues are opened if the government is showing preferential treatment while excluding singles, and limiting the number of participants in marriage.
3. A dowery was not at the basis of American marriage laws. You know that.
DOMA simply intended to maintain the rights of married couples because of children. If children are removed as a government interest, than those rights must be extended to ALL people, married or not. Moreover, outlawing polygamy is discriminatory because it is based on children too.
4. Two people (or more) already have an advantage of shared expenses. Now singles are excluded from additional benefits? For what government interest?
Moreover, since those benefits were intended for stay at home mothers, but were invalidated because of societal changes, it only makes sense to REMOVE them, or extend them to ALL.
You are defensive and evasive because you know this.
And yet it didn't limit those benefits ONLY to married couples with children, but DID deny those benefits to same-sex couples raising children.

Feel free to fight to have all govt benefits for marriage removed; I'm sure that will be VERY popular with the millions of marriage couples- gay and straight.
First American

Charlestown, IN

#8835 Nov 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So does that mean other forms of marriage should also be allowed?
I am for less government control as you can see anything they touch is a hot mess.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8836 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's beneficial to the couple because they share expenses. Then they get additional breaks from the government. Singles are screwed.
However, if we take your logic to a reasonable place, we give couples with biological children help, because they are supporting extra people who are not yet self-sufficient.
Which way do you want to go with this?
Smile.
No one prevents single people from getting married.

It's not about giving help, otherwise we wouldn't give the same benefits & tax breaks to married wealthy couples, whether they're raising kids or not.

I'm not sure why you think it's less expensive to raise biological children than adopted children. Not to mention many same-sex couples are raising kids that are biologically related to one parent.

I think I'll go with allowing same-sex couples to exercise their right to marry in all 50 states AND getting all the same rights & benefits every other married couples gets, regardless of whether they are raising kids or not.

Yep, that's where we're going with this, and there's nothing you anti-gays can do about it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8837 Nov 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA changed nothing. It forced nothing. It simply kept things as they were.
Why are you lying?
Wrong again.

The way things were pre-DOMA was the federal govt recognized all legal marriages performed by the states.

DOMA forced the federal govt to discriminate against those legally married couples who happened to be of the same sex.

That's why it was overturned by the SCOTUS; or did you miss that?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8838 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Monogamy has ALREADY been rejected by the majority of heterosexuals; hence the 50%+ divorce rate.
Sheepie.....not monogamy as in sexual fidelity, odd that you would confuse that considering the "monogamish" attitude, to quote Dan Savage, gay male couples take to faithfulness, but monogamy as in one wife or husband at a time.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8839 Nov 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
Irrelevant, but true.
Whoa!!!! Sheeplie.....did you just agree with me? I'm gonna have to sit down
Equal protection of the law still applies, even to behaviors which are choices- i.e. religion, marriage, voting, etc.
Exactly, all men, and all women, should be treated the same, equal protection.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8840 Nov 10, 2013
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is better for society and all its members. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8841 Nov 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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. Ss marriage is an oxymoron.
First American wrote:
<quoted text>
What if your child was homosexual? Do you want them to have their dreams shattered over something they can not control? i am not going to pretend i even understand homosexuality, But if my child was to be homosexual i would march in the parade right along with them. every man and woman is someones son or daughter.
How would that change a scientific truth?

In fact, what does your comment have to do with what I wrote?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8842 Nov 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet it didn't limit those benefits ONLY to married couples with children, but DID deny those benefits to same-sex couples raising children.
Feel free to fight to have all govt benefits for marriage removed; I'm sure that will be VERY popular with the millions of marriage couples- gay and straight.
It didn't limit those benefits to married couples without kids because until recently, the potential of procreation was unknown until marriage, and the vast majority of married couples wanted children.

Moreover, until recently, the government sought the best interests of the CHILDREN, not ss couples, and sought to provide a mother and father to children.

Now you admit the injustice of the situation, but assert a majority can overrule the rights of a minority? Were you not just on the other side of that claim???

Unbelievable hypocrisy.
Maybe Bill

Dublin, CA

#8843 Nov 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is better for society and all its members. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
Well Bri,looks like you've got over 43,000 bumper stickers and the funny thing is.....None of them are true! Is it hard for you to get out of the bed every morning? I mean after bumping your head every 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
Ivanka and congressman Donald Norcross 4 hr Rach 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Dekki le Quado 242,229
News California Senate OKs real estate fee to fund m... 7 hr What Gives 26
News CA Judge Places Stiff Contempt Fine On Pro-Life... 13 hr cpeter1313 1
Jerry Brown: Another Corporate Democrat 18 hr SmartTexan I read 4
News PowWow Energy Releases Automated Water Records ... 19 hr American PieJamboree 2
Dirty George Norcross - Follow the Money 19 hr Ray 2
More from around the web