Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

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.

Comments (Page 139)

Showing posts 2,761 - 2,780 of50,755
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
d pantz

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3058
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

common sense wrote:
Well jerald if the state exists to benefit its citizens ,it would be in the best interests of its citizens to not allow gay marriage so as not to further deteriotate the institution of marriage by making it less moral and sexually liberated ,and further away from what it traditionally represents.
America ,seeing as it is so proud of its high moral standards and democracy should put such an important social and cultural issue to a referendum or vote ,allowing all its citizens to have they're say on the issue,not just let the minority with the loudest voice and media power to brainwash ,decide for the majority .But that would never happen as we all know what the result would be
or maybe they would see the tax benefits for any marriage are unconstitutional and discriminates against people who CHOOSE to stay single.
d pantz

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3059
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

desert walker wrote:
may you all know Jesus for who He really is
that guy we thought would forgive us for our sins? Except we christians forgot about repenting too,that's cool we don't have to realize why our sin is wrong or how it affects people, we just ask jesus for forgiveness. Or if you're catholic do whatever you want and say 50 hail marys. Yeah, that's not even in the bible. Now we have pro ssm people quoting the bible too? LOL!
The Original Crash

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3060
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

how about getting the poop off the pecker...that is gross
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3063
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Gay marriage deteriotes what a marriage means now and turns it into something thats non traditional or conservative and is more sexually liberated.The state does allow equal protection of the law by allowing anyone to get married ,and as long as you abide by its laws youre affored the same priveleges and rights.

I dont even think thats its about having the same priveleges and rights for the gays because as they've mentioned before ,even if they had a civil union that afforded them the same priveleges and rights they would still want to change the meaning of marriage because it represents something that they can never have ,and thats a normal ,biological family .
the crispy critter

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3065
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

down with gay up with straight
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3066
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, in responding to a post that did not parse, but rather combined responses to multiple posts you ahve proven that you a) don't understand what parsed means, and b) lack the ability to rationally argue against comments that address specific points.
Congratulations, for proving your irrelevance. Feel free to join the adults and offer a valid argument.
You parsed. You obviously can't follow a simple request, and you're showing your obsessive-compulsive and anti-social tendencies. I don't need to "rationally respond to specific points" Those are what are called "sound bites".

Granted, the common apes don't like to debate complex concepts, but life is complex. If all you're interested in is to talk to poo flinging chimps, then so be it. You're not capable of addressing complex human cultural responsibilities, just basic animal impulses.

I'm sure you can find PLENTY of posters whose pat response to almost anything is "Yeah! Well you can suck my ****!" and from there, you can unleash your "special" response and life is like a big fat cigar for you! Neither misanthropic response is how I contend with life, but I guess you HAD to try ONE more time to induce a "fencing" match.

YOU! YOU! YOU! Remember! Just ONE more time!! Not a fencing animal! Just ONE MORE TIME!

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3067
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>wow I bet you have a theology degree.
Actually what Ryan wrote was probably one of the best explanations I have read! What's wrong w/ Theology degrees?

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3068
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely correct!
Gay Marriage is not totally legal in every state!!! In my state they just passed civil unions which is technically not the same! The big legal differences have to do w/ sickness, death , taxes and adoption all things that homosexuals have trouble engaging in unlike their heterosexual neighbors.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3069
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

common sense wrote:
lides,you keep going on and on like a broken record about what benefit does the state have in denying gay marriage,but what benefits will the state have in changing such a well established instutution as marriage that has been the cornerstone of civilization for millenia.Marriage as it has been has had many benefits for society and served us well till now ,so like they say if it aint broke ,dont fix it.
Why would the state spend all that money and time and effort and upset a large part of their population just to appease a small minority of people with abnormal sexual desires.What benefit will gay marriage provide to the state or to the population in general,how will it make our lives any better to change the status quo.
Gays are the ones who want to change things so the onus is on them to provide us with why we should do so and to what benefit is it to society in general.
No, that is a mistaken assumption. Since you brought up slavery, consider the analogy. Slaves would have been cruelly punished for speaking up for their rights and the value of freeing them. In truth, the debate still goes on today, but we launder our underclass through complex laws.

Today, we use Mexicans as the cornerstone of our form of slavery. We want cheap agricultural labor that can't be replaced by machines. We want to keep these people on a leash, the fear of deportation that would hurt none of the farming conglomerates, but would entail great expense within out government to prevent to begin with, and perhaps more to return to Mexico, Our farming conglomerates have dodged their taxation responsibilities while illegal aliens are a liability to our healthcare and schools.

We don't need lies and denial. We need adults. The Bill of Rights are there to protect the minority factions more than to protect gun-toting, Bible-thumping, intolerant bullies.

Slavery had to end. It was an institution in defiance of the Bill of Rights. Treating human beings as property is the old way of laundering basic human rights. Unfair taxation issues like marriage are the new way of doing the same.

Too bad for you that a greedy, goofball group has decided that they are entitled to the selfish perks that the current majority takes as a "right".

There are three basic truths of our culture that have changed since the current marriage assumptions were decided. First, women are now regularly part of the workforce. Second, the United States has established income tax laws. Third, we are no longer in a state of colonial expansion.

Well, the convention of having a marriage based on the splitting of chores between heavy labor and routine maintenance of a house may have made good sense when we did not have appliances and factories to handle a majority of the responsibilities, but just has many jobs have been replaced by machines, so has the role of the homemaker.

The Income Tax rules go hand-in-hand with the colonization thing. There was a time when our country believed in a national purpose called "manifest destiny", kind of like an Apollo space program for the 1800's. We felt it was our destiny to build the nation to occupy the continent from coast to coast. Delaying that goal would have threatened our ambitions. That's all over! We don't need to subsidize breeding. It never really was a thing that our government should have gotten involved in anyway.

Those days are over. The days of the individual homesteaders are over. The reality of today is providing jobs for a population that has largely urbanized and that is in excess of our needs for improving our standard of living.

The reality if that we are still locked in a world of old-school industrialists who promised that we'd all have white-collar jobs, leaving the labor to foreigners. Well, that has not happened either. We have computers, but no organization, facts but no ideas.

We need adults, not posers! Don't leave our world to obsolete industrialists.

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3070
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

5

Brian_G wrote:
I've never written: "civil marriage is about ensuring that children are raised by their biological parents", those are Jerald's words, not mine. I wrote, the ideal is for a child to be raised by the kid's mom and dad; that's why marriage is male/female.

Note the use of the word 'ideal', not everybody can live up to that standard. That's no reason to ban adoption as Jerald proposes.
Your argument is simplistic! Throughout history children have been raised both well and poorly in a variety of environments- either do to a parent's death or being abandoned - as long as one is brought up in a loving environment that is all that counts! I have several gay friends who have kids- and having witnessed their development in our community I can safely say those kids will be terrific adults !
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3071
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> "compelling interest of the state"? What?
Roughly translated: Authoritarian rule.

It's not sinking in!

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3072
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

common sense wrote:
Gay marriage deteriotes what a marriage means now and turns it into something thats non traditional or conservative and is more sexually liberated.The state does allow equal protection of the law by allowing anyone to get married ,and as long as you abide by its laws youre affored the same priveleges and rights.

I dont even think thats its about having the same priveleges and rights for the gays because as they've mentioned before ,even if they had a civil union that afforded them the same priveleges and rights they would still want to change the meaning of marriage because it represents something that they can never have ,and thats a normal ,biological family .
Lol- yea Marriage is so sacred- that's why we have the divorce rates we do, right? What are they now, over 50%? That must because of how sacred it is! And for all of you claiming its been the same for a millennia must forget the days where is was just a means for kings to gain land and power by pawing their daughters to other kings....I could go on and on over sacredness of "marriage "!

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3073
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

the crispy critter wrote:
down with gay up with straight
Dude- grow up and expand your mind
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3074
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

5

4sitesartproductions wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude- grow up and expand your mind
Why is that post any different than the "Judge me" nonsense?

More posers!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3075
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
I've never written: "civil marriage is about ensuring that children are raised by their biological parents", those are Jerald's words, not mine. I wrote, the ideal is for a child to be raised by the kid's mom and dad; that's why marriage is male/female.
Note the use of the word 'ideal', not everybody can live up to that standard. That's no reason to ban adoption as Jerald proposes.
What you’ve never done is substantiate your opinion with an actual study, medical, academic, scientific,or otherwise.

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3076
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Why is that post any different than the "Judge me" nonsense?

More posers!
I judge your statement- which was ignorant !!! Saying that being straight is the only way is close minded , yes? That's why I said you should expand your mind ! I stand by my original statement - cheers.

“N.E.R.D.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3077
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

lides wrote:
What youÂ’ve never done is substantiate your opinion with an actual study, medical, academic, scientific,or otherwise.
If you were referring to me- then here you go:

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statem...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-26...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/kel...

Please let me know if you would like to see more articles!!!! I tried to vet the sources to make sure they were credible! I also have my personal experience having witnessed some friends raise a very intelligent an social son which I believe I mentioned in an earlier post.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3078
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

4sitesartproductions wrote:
<quoted text>
I judge your statement- which was ignorant !!! Saying that being straight is the only way is close minded , yes? That's why I said you should expand your mind ! I stand by my original statement - cheers.
Why does anyone care about your judgement?

No. All you are doing is monkey fencing. The vast majority of people here aren't here to debate. They're here to trash talk.

If you wish to do a little toe tapping with the conservatives, find a nice airport bathroom stall or something. I don't need or want your games. All you posers.... Well, I have to say, titillating yourselves in front of the mirror.

Put some logic and facts on the table or go to your bathroom stall and play....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3079
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

d pantz wrote:
"compelling interest of the state"? What?
It is a very important part of the legal standard to which our right to marry is supposed to be held to. The individual's right to marry is seen as being such a fundamental one, in order for the state to deny us that right, it must serve a compelling governmental interest in order to do so. You cannot marry a six-year-old, because the state has the compelling interest of the protection of minors. You cannot marry your pet, lawn furniture, your car, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a consensual contract between the parties. You cannot marry your mother, father, sister, brother, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a contract between legal strangers. The government has no interest, compelling or otherwise, that is served by denying your, my, our right to marry based on the sex of the person you are wanting to marry.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3080
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It is a very important part of the legal standard to which our right to marry is supposed to be held to. The individual's right to marry is seen as being such a fundamental one, in order for the state to deny us that right, it must serve a compelling governmental interest in order to do so. You cannot marry a six-year-old, because the state has the compelling interest of the protection of minors. You cannot marry your pet, lawn furniture, your car, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a consensual contract between the parties. You cannot marry your mother, father, sister, brother, etc, because the state has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage as a contract between legal strangers. The government has no interest, compelling or otherwise, that is served by denying your, my, our right to marry based on the sex of the person you are wanting to marry.
Hold on now...what 'compelling interest' goes the state have in maintaining marriage 'only' between strangers???

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,761 - 2,780 of50,755
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••