Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61362 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.

anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#16594 Jan 1, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't come up with one rational argument against gay marriage.
Prove me wrong, post a rational argument against gay marriage.
Don't just say you have.
It will take no longer to post the argument than to claim you have.
And there are people who are just joining the forum.
I'm sure they would love to see a rational argument against gay marriage.
I haven't been trying to come up with any argument against gay marriage. I've been coming up with arguments why the whole institution is unfair taxation and that gay marriage only adds to it.

Past that I've have to come up with an argument against Affirmative Action but that is off topic. Generally though, I have been dismissing all forms of social engineering as outside of the scope of government. Since most churches don't put too much into social engineering that doesn't increase their power base, we DO have a bit of a problem.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#16595 Jan 1, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you actually claiming that oral isn't mutually pleasurable? I can assure you that when I'm giving hubby oral, we're both getting exactly what we're looking for.
OK. Well, that is probably where you have your immense break from the conventions of "normal" behavior. Whether your hugely dependent or hugely manipulative, your role in the relationship you engage in is not what I would even imagine to be "love", that meaningless word that SOOOO many use to justify SOOO many evil deeds.

..and everything else proceeds from there!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#16596 Jan 1, 2014
you're*(Dang! I hate slipping up as a good grammar NAZI!)

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#16597 Jan 1, 2014
whitey wrote:
I think when you adopt a child into a gay home that the child will grow up gay and that is ruining his life before it starts. He will grow up with thinking that being gay is perfectly fine because he will not have any other influences to go by. Poor guy or girl. And you all gays seems to not understand that if this was to continue that gays will make our human race instinct. Think about it
Gays tell us a child raised by gay parents is no more likely to become gay than any other child because homosexuality isn't choice -- you must be "born that way." But this isn't what the science says. Here's what the science says:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...

I'll repeat the most important part of that:

no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
So if this is what science says, why are gays telling us gay parents can't influence the adopted child's sexual orientation?

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#16598 Jan 1, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Well, that is probably where you have your immense break from the conventions of "normal" behavior. Whether your hugely dependent or hugely manipulative, your role in the relationship you engage in is not what I would even imagine to be "love", that meaningless word that SOOOO many use to justify SOOO many evil deeds.
..and everything else proceeds from there!
Dusty has a revolting anecdote for everything and jumps at the chance of posting it no matter how it grosses everyone out.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16599 Jan 1, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
2013, the year the Left went too far...
No, Brian. 2013 was the year you proved what a total and complete imbecile that you are.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#16600 Jan 1, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Dusty has a revolting anecdote for everything and jumps at the chance of posting it no matter how it grosses everyone out.
Ditto

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16601 Jan 1, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
Stop being ridiculous.
After you.
garylloyd wrote:
The men behind the 14th Amendment are rolling in their graves at the prospect of their words being used as the legal foundation for same-sex marriage.
No, simply put, they aren't. If they hadn't intended to ensure that no class of Americans could be excluded from equal protection of the law, they would not have elected to use the language that they did. It begins with "All persons" and it ends "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not any former slave, not any black man, not any black person, but nor deny ANY PERSON equal protection of the laws. They didn't even require citizenship for this provision.

Gary, you are a moron.
garylloyd wrote:
They'd have thought this an abomination before God as everyone of the time would have.
Actually, the founders saw fit to ensure that one could hold the religious convictions of their choosing. Don't you remember that this country was founded on the basis of escaping religious persecution? Gary, you don't know much about US history, do you? The more you write, the dumber you look.
garylloyd wrote:
And where's the vagueness you speak of? Point out the language. How vague?
"All persons," for one. "nor deny any person," for another.
It is specifically vaguely written. Were you not an idiot, you would understand that. The problem is that you are trying to rationalize the Amendment to mean something other than what it actually means.
garylloyd wrote:
Vague enough to include bestiality and marriage to inanimate objects? Well, sure, you could make that argument too.
No, only an idiot could not see the distinction. You see, moron, both animals and inanimate objects lack the ability to legally consent or enter into a legal contract. Just how dumb do you want people to believe that you are?
garylloyd wrote:
That's not vagueness; that's people framing their ideas in the idiom of the time -- and then someone like you coming along and saying the Founding Fathers were all for homosexual marriage.
Well, that's a lie, and if you start with a lie, Lides, everything that follows is a lie.
All people, moron. That's not an idiom of the time, it is a concrete concept that no one be excluded. The law has since been altered to clarify that people may be excluded from equal protection if, and only if, doing so serves a compelling state interest. Of course, you are too stupid to articulate any such interest served by denying same sex marriage.

One could draw the conclusion that you are dumber than the inanimate objects you seem to think should be allowed to marry.
KiMare wrote:
I will when mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered halves of marriage are equal.
Waiting...
Smirk.
18 states and counting, you witless moron.

Hey, brainless, can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry? Does this prove the idiocy of your notion that there is a procreative prerequisite for legal marriage, and that you are little more than an idiot?
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#16602 Jan 1, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays tell us a child raised by gay parents is no more likely to become gay than any other child because homosexuality isn't choice -- you must be "born that way." But this isn't what the science says. Here's what the science says:
<quoted text>
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
I'll repeat the most important part of that:
<quoted text>
So if this is what science says, why are gays telling us gay parents can't influence the adopted child's sexual orientation?
Maybe you should read the link you posted instead of shooting your bigoted mouth off clown...I for one am sick of your lies and BS. Take your Gay 'concerns' and shove them up your a$$..

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16603 Jan 1, 2014
Nine ball wrote:
<quoted text>
It don't bother me at all since I don't do it. The thought of some man squirting what you call baby batter into either the mouth or butt discusses me. Makes me want to puke. But that is your business. Just don't claim that what you do is the natural way or that either of those places is just as natural as a woman's you know what. You can do it with or to anyone that you please as far as I care. Just don't hide in park bath rooms or movie bath rooms and try to do it with anybody that comes in. I hope that you brush your teeth if you have any teeth and use Listerine to wash out your mouth before you eat your next meal.
And yet you continue to obsess over it.....

Here's a hint- most straight men don't spend their days trolling the gay topics.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16604 Jan 1, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Brian. 2013 was the year you proved what a total and complete imbecile that you are.
Wow, one year in history upset all the rest.

Now that's faith! You got religion lides???

Smirk.

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#16605 Jan 1, 2014
The LGBT Game Plan

Since most self-loathing liberals are clueless about the LGBT game plan I'd like to break it down for them.

First, normal people are born with an aversion to homosexuality. Clearly, it's a mechanism built in us to insure the propagation of the species. The propagation of the species requires not only heterosexuality, but heterosexuals who fuk like bunnies.

In short, the LGBT community wants to do away with this instinct. They want to bring about a world where no one will have an aversion to two men butt-fucking each other or two women lapping each other's twats.

This explains why gays are obsessed with getting into our schools. It's not pedophilia -- gays are no more pedophiles than anybody else. Gays are in the schools to remove the natural aversion children have for homosexuality and replace it with a love and acceptance of homosexuality.

Gays tell us no child is at risk of becoming homosexual when given such instruction because all homosexuals are "born that way."

Bullshit.

Here's what the American Psychiatric Association says about that:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...

Allow me to repeat the operative words:
no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
So what are gays doing in your schools? What is "gay friendly" curriculum doing in our schools? We are having this conversation today because since the dawn of history our ancestors possessed an aversion to homosexuality -- and reinforced this aversion in their kids. Why are we allowing gays to undo this age-old instinct right in front of our eyes? How stupid is that?

A recent New York Times article noted that 57% of gays have unprotected sex. A recent CDC report put the number of new HIV cases at 78% gay male.

In other words, if we know nothing else, we know young boys who CHOOSE to be gay have better than a 50-50 chance of winding up with HIV.

Shouldn't we be doing something to prevent this from happening?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16606 Jan 1, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
2013, the year the Left went too far...
What "left" are you referring to? Judges appointed and conformed by Republicans?

Are Republicans now on the "left" in your strange little world?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16607 Jan 1, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
The old saying is:
Sex is the price that women pay for marriage
Marriage is the price that men pay for sex
That sounds about right.

I have to admit I'll never understand it. The last thing most straight men want to do is to spend time with their wives or girlfriends- except for the 1% of their day they spend having sex. The rest of the time they want to hang out with their "bros" telling lies about their most recent 1% experience or fantasizing about their next 1%. And from what I can tell, it's not much different for most straight women.

Why would you marry someone you have absolutely nothing in common with outside that 1%? I've only known one truly happily married heterosexual couple in my lifetime- my parents; they've spent nearly every minute of their lives together since getting married over 50 years ago.

If I could spend 100% of each & every day with my husband I'd be the happiest man in the world.

Nope, I just don't get heteros...
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#16608 Jan 1, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
The LGBT Game Plan
More bigoted BS and Lying
STFU there is NO 'game plan' stupid. Fighting against repression, stupidity and bigotry is NO game!

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#16609 Jan 1, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
After you.
<quoted text>
No, simply put, they aren't. If they hadn't intended to ensure that no class of Americans could be excluded from equal protection of the law, they would not have elected to use the language that they did. It begins with "All persons" and it ends "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not any former slave, not any black man, not any black person, but nor deny ANY PERSON equal protection of the laws. They didn't even require citizenship for this provision.
Gary, you are a moron.
Honestly, Lides, we suspected you were some kind of rare idiot, now you've presented us with all the evidence we need.

First of all, you make the ridiculous claim that the Framers wanted to insure "no class of Americans could be excluded from equal protection of the law,"

Huh...?

No class? There are about 22 other recognized sexual orientations, Lides. Are you really so disturbingly stupid you believe the Framers wanted to keep things "open-ended" so that pedophiles, sadists, voyeurs, transsexuals and telephone scatologists would be covered by the 14th Amendment too?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16610 Jan 1, 2014
Guys!

Pay very close attention to the "garylloyd"s among us, and you will see what will be coming in hordes during the next two election cycles.

Brace yourselves.

And fergossakes learn some social and political Aikido !!!
Nine ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#16611 Jan 1, 2014
whitey wrote:
I think when you adopt a child into a gay home that the child will grow up gay and that is ruining his life before it starts. He will grow up with thinking that being gay is perfectly fine because he will not have any other influences to go by. Poor guy or girl. And you all gays seems to not understand that if this was to continue that gays will make our human race instinct. Think about it
The worst part of this thing is what happens to children who are brought into a home of two gays. First there is no mother unless you think that one of the men would be the mother. Every kid needs a momma. What if the two gays are both woman like. Then the kid has no father and every kid needs a daddy. Kids are not dumb. When he figures out what his two daddies are doing in the bedroom, what do you expect that he thinks? He thinks that gays doing it is a peach and he will grow up wanting to put it in another guy's butt or mouth. What if he does not buy that his parents are normal. Will he hate them? What will he do at school when the kids find out that his so called parents are gay? How will he act when they tease him about what they and he probably is doing. And what if the two gays have a girl?(I know they won't adopt a girl, but a lot of gays are hiring a woman to take their seed and have a baby and half of them are girls. Two gays who don't relate to women raising a girl? No way.
Nine ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#16612 Jan 1, 2014
WhaaaaT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,I thought about it and came to the conclusion that you're an idiot ! You simply cannot turn someone straight into being gay ! Doesn't happen and it's ludicrous to even state so ! Got any other idiotic ideas to put forth and make you look like an even bigger idiot ? Simply not true !
Ever hear of monkey see, monkey do? I reckon that you can teach about anything to a kid.
Think about it. He grows up seeing his gay parents hug and kiss. When he is about 13 he begins to figure out what is going on in the bedroom. He knows what they are doing and he is beginning to stir in the pecker about now. If they is doing it, he will want to try it out. Some of you are saying how wonderful butt sex is so he asks a buddy to try it out. The buddy tells every body in the 7th grade. He is teased, but another boy kinda would like to try it out too so he becomes his friend. First thing you know, he says that he is gay just like his two daddies. But what if he wants to ask a girl to a school dance and he does not completely buy this gay stuff. How are his two daddies going to act when he wants a girl? See what I mean?
Of course you gays are saying that every thing will be honkey dorey with kids, but you is wrong.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16613 Jan 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying it is silly stupid when gay couples compare themselves with old people, medically afflicted, and, get this, couples who can MAKE A CHOICE whether or not to procreate! Cracks me up!!! LOL.
What cracks me up is you anti-gays don't realize how much you are actually HELPING us get marriage equality in state after state.

Keep up the good work Kimare-Gary!!

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 Donald Trump calls unauthorized immigrants 'ani... 16 min Shirvell s Shrivel 909
News Electric and autonomous cars will change way Ca... 2 hr fiuhf3hj4hjf3hbfj3h 2
News California Primary Election: Voters Head to the... 2 hr tomin cali 36
Gavin Newsom is the next politician to get the ... 5 hr Solarman 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr qz-zq 243,563
Andrew Janz: Another Corporate Democrat 9 hr Local 2
News Court reinstates California's controversial rig... 10 hr Annie Oakly 3