Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 60847 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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9829 Nov 18, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>You have again disgraced any claim you have to being logical. If you are irrational enough to want to base things on court decisions, US courts and courts throughout the world have overwhelmingly rejected the fiction of homosexual 'marriage,' just as homosexuals themselves have overwhelmingly reject it as an actual practice. Laws preventing homosexual 'marriage' remain valid and on the books is most US states.
Your plagiarized rant about a rational interest in denying homosexuals 'marriage' is entirely irrational. Homosexuals were never denied a marriage license. What you are assuming, irrationally, is that marriage is the same thing as two homosexuals 'marrying.' You're talking about an irrational redefinition of marriage, and not any right to 'marry.'
You've lied about my stating that procreation should be a requirement for marriage. I assume because you have no rational argument for homosexual 'marriage.' As for a state interest in children being born or adopted into a household that can provide a father and mother, statistics are against your irrational rants. Having both a father and mother in the home is one of the best statistical indicators of a child's future success in life. Unless you are hateful and irrational enough to think that the state has no rational interest in child welfare, you have no argument. Real marriage is an established institution that has the capability of providing this advantage that no homosexual relationship can.
You don't have a rational leg to stand on, but are just endlessly repeated irrational rants.
And yet numerous courts have ruled same-sex couples DO have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples.

That's why we went from bans in 49 of the 50 states (NM never had a ban), to 14 states (soon to be 16) where same-sex couples are able to exercise their right to marry.

That's also why the federal govt now recognizes ALL legal marriages, regardless of the gender of the parties involved.

Aaah, good times!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#9830 Nov 18, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals are either male or female. Your need to define these males or females by sexual orientation is what's at issue. This should not be permitted. There are at least 20 other sexual orientations out there; should we define a person by them too?
<quoted text>
Yes -- sexual orientation. It certainly isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Should we assign minority status to coprophiliacs and urophiliacs too or just homosexuals?
I'm not being silly.
You're being a moron.
garylloyd wrote:
I'm just pointing out once we embark on the slippery slope of defining people by their sexual orientation there's no end to it.
Got yer slippery slope right here.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#9831 Nov 18, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
But none have said anything about male-to-male anal sex which remains...snip...
Something you can't get your mind off of.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9832 Nov 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It does when we discuss a form of marriage never seen in written law before the 21st Century. When you take marriage's ideal affirmative action 1:1 equality and add discrimination to create man/man or woman/woman marriage then government changes the way it sees husband and wife. In fact, sex segregated marriage adds disunity, separatism and strips gender diversity from the marriage union.
If you change marriage law, it affects estate law, custody law, adoption law and divorce law, just to name a few. BTW, everybody has the same right to marry under the same laws; gays have always married. There is no orientation test for a marriage license; never was until same sex marriage.
And there STILL isn't an orientation test for a marriage license; a heterosexual man can legally marry another heterosexual man.

Yep, that's called equality.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9833 Nov 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First your claim is untrue.
Second, that's because it's ridiculous.
Science does not know the cause of homosexuality or its purpose. In fact, the only thing they are sure abut is that it is a failure of mating behavior.
Which brings us to the medical community. No reputable, honest medical professional would claim that the anus is designed for intercourse.
These two failures fatally undermine the ability of any profession to honestly claim homosexuality as normal.
Now Lides, calling me stupid is not an argument. Perhaps you could spare us the childishness and give a reasoned response without the ad homoan attacks?
Smile.
I guess no one told the millions of heterosexuals- male & female- who enjoy engaging in anal sex.

And of course there are millions of gay men & lesbians who NEVER engage in anal sex.

To each their own.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#9834 Nov 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It does when we discuss a form of marriage never seen in written law before the 21st Century.
Well, it is the 21st Century.
Brian_G wrote:
When you take marriage's ideal affirmative action 1:1 equality and add discrimination to create man/man or woman/woman marriage then government changes the way it sees husband and wife. In fact, sex segregated marriage adds disunity, separatism and strips gender diversity from the marriage union.
Your parents stripped their marriage of existence.
Brian_G wrote:
If you change marriage law, it affects estate law, custody law, adoption law and divorce law, just to name a few.
That's kind of the point, idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
BTW, everybody has the same right to marry under the same laws; gays have always married. There is no orientation test for a marriage license; never was until same sex marriage.
But there is a gender test. That violates the 14th Amendment.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9835 Nov 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The guy who said "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it" also said "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ó for me ó for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. Godís in the mix."
That's nice.

But also irrelevant to civil marriage law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9836 Nov 18, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you're astronomical HIV rate proves you're not even honest to each other.
Ditto for the MILLIONS of heterosexuals with HIV/AIDS.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9837 Nov 18, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Insults and ridiculous fiction is not a rational response to reality.
No one has been able to refute even one of these points, all of which are relevant to any rational discussion of the subject:
Obviously we HAVE been able to refute your moronic points, which is why we are winning the fight for marriage equality in state after state after state.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9838 Nov 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>According to lides, if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't turn down a same sex wedding gig or you'll be sued for discrimination. Even if you respect gays, serve and employ them even wish them every happiness, if you think same sex marriage is wrong you're a bigot. If this is true, list one unbigoted argument for keeping marriage one man and one woman.
Marriage isn't for everyone.
Correct, if you oppose marriage for same-sex couples you're a bigot.

Correct, the 50%+ divorce rate & 75%+ infidelity rate of heterosexual marriages shows marriage isn't for everyone.

You finally got 2 things right, and in the same post!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9839 Nov 18, 2013
Norman Chaney 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
THE HECK I DON'T HAVE A POINT.
My objection to you is, to reiterate:
(1) homosexuals are personal hygiene phonies (please see Holden Caulfield's/J.D. Salinger's commentary on homosexuals in Catcher in the Rye.
(2) the Yale U Press book by the Princeton prof promises advances in prenatal testing will lead to the abortion of homosexuals en masse--so I see you as a sinking ship.
Okay, so you have a point.

A totally ridiculous nonsensical point.

Congrats.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9840 Nov 18, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No child has one parent or two same sex parents. Even you know that's biologically impossible, uncle dad.
I never said anything about biological parents.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#9841 Nov 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>According to lides, if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't turn down a same sex wedding gig or you'll be sued for discrimination. Even if you respect gays, serve and employ them even wish them every happiness, if you think same sex marriage is wrong you're a bigot. If this is true, list one unbigoted argument for keeping marriage one man and one woman.
Marriage isn't for everyone.
It wasn't for your parents.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9842 Nov 18, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
More evidence of what gays are doing in out schools:
==========

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/d...
Rabidly anti-gay organizations aren't credible sources.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9843 Nov 18, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably because most people are either male or female.
<quoted text>
It makes absolutely no sexual statement and none is required. People are either male or female. You want people to be male, female, or homosexual. The problem is, you can't even define what homosexual is.
<quoted text>
You're confused.
You want to change the Constitution's definition of personhood to include homosexuals. It doesn't because it in no way, shape, or form addresses sexual orientation. That's the issue: whether the Constitution should be amended to include your sexual orientation. Well, unless you can explain why it should include the other 22 known sexual orientations, why should it include yours?
<quoted text>
The story illustrates what happens when same-sex marriage becomes law. You fellows use it as a Trojan Horse to get into the schools where you began referring high school kids to gay clubs. This kid had his first sexual experience at this gay club. To you, that's a good thing, right?
Correct, most people are either male or female.

Some are heterosexual, some are homosexual, some are bisexual, some are asexual.

No one is trying to amend the constitution to make sexual orientation another gender, because it's a ridiculous concept you dreamed up.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9844 Nov 18, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence?
Do you have a link or are you making up data again?
Google Boy Scout sexual abuse.

Since gays have been banned from the Boy Scouts, that means it had to be heterosexual men doing all that sexual abuse, since they were the only ones allowed as Scout Masters/Troop Leaders.

Probably the very same heterosexual you admitted can't be trusted around young girls.

That's why you should NEVER allow a heterosexual man to be alone with a child.

NEVER.

EVER.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9845 Nov 18, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D. disagrees with you:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/hom...
A catholic homophobe has no credence.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9846 Nov 18, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How can I find this evidence?
Google.com

It's a very useful tool (unlike you...)
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9847 Nov 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Google.com
It's a very useful tool (unlike you...)
I won't waste my time, there is no such evidence. Any 'evidence' you may have found will be on gay sites anyway, they don't count.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9848 Nov 18, 2013
BTW, thank you. I'm glad you realize that I'm not a useful tool for the gay marriage movement. That would be you.

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) 5 min Dale 196,806
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr IB DaMann 54,478
loan lender 18 hr Mr galileo enstein 1
State Department Clears Hillary Clinton of all ... Wed District 1 2
Join The Great illuminati in America for Riches... (Aug '14) Wed illuminati reigns 3
NO ILLEGALS DRUGS in CA Aug 24 NO DRUGS ILLEGALS... 1
Dear Obama Hater_ U Just Wasted A Decade of You... Aug 24 District 1 1
More from around the web