Gay marriage

There are 61392 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

#9035 Nov 13, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeese! No stopping you on your monologue now!
You deny your revisionist law by never stopping your revisions. You're doing it again.
The first rule of interpretation of the law is legal precedent. There's years of legal precedent against your ideas, and you and your socialist friends work very hard to undo precedent, but that doesn't mean that there is any kind of public or legal discourse involved.
You're no better than the politicians who pull lunatic defenses of their actions out of their nether regions with things like "meaning of the word "is"". The courts are letting themselves turn into a cage of chimps. It doesn't mean that I'm going to indulge them.
Who or what you choose to indulge is entirely up to you.

It won't change centuries of preferential treatment for married couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9036 Nov 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are no couples' rights in the Constitution. Homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else, so same sex marriage is the special right to redefine marriage making it gender segregated. Segregation is about discrimination, the perfect equality of 1:1 affirmative action sex integrated marriage changed for the left's political power play.
.
<quoted text>Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter are two examples of gays marrying under the same laws as the rest of us. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution, the issue is radical cultural change, not equality.
.
<quoted text>I record most insults, but I seldom respond to irrational ad hominem. That makes it seems like I don't engage; I don't participate in emotional arguments, my time's too valuable.
If your time is so valuable, then why do you spend so much of it on a losing cause- i.e. trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9037 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The government has no interest in gay marriage. The government has an interest in tradition marriage, in fact, many interests.
What are they?
Wondering wrote:
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage but it is impossible for gay couples. There is no reason for them to marry.
Gay couples are capable of having children through adoption and artificial means. The only thing they cannot do is naturally conceive children, which is also true of many straight couples, yet those couples are not disqualified from marriage.

Is it your position that the ONLY REASON for marriage is natural reproduction?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9038 Nov 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you judge my message if you can't understand it?
Cross cultural means that marriage has been present in every single culture in human history.
Marriage is a 'constraint' on mating behavior. It restricts one of the strongest passions of evolution, the desire to mate as often as possible with as many as possible.
This is basic evolution. Not hard to understand for most adults.
Mars and Venus relate to the vast distinctions between genders. The result of uniting diverse genders results in a extremely unique union. A duplicate gendered relationship does nothing of the sort. This is not difficult for adults to understand either.
Are you suggesting that homosexuals reproduce asexually?
This issue just might be out of your league...
Considering the 50% divorce rate and 75% infidelity rate of heterosexual marriage, it doesn't sound like marriage is very effective at "constraining" that mating behavior. Sounds more like a load of crap from you as usual.

People aren't planets. Every person is unique & distinct. Uniting ANY 2 people in marriage results in a another unique union.

Btw, by definition something can't be "extremely unique".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9039 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It's a special law. There is no question about it. Because marriage laws are the same for anyone in any given state they are equal.
2. Traditional marriage laws segregate no one. It is your sexual orientation that segregates you. Homosexual couples are not the same as straight couples.
Which means marriage laws in the 16 states which allow same-sex couples to marry are equal as well.

No couple is the same; we're all unique.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9040 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
1. What are they?
<quoted text>
2. Gay couples are capable of having children through adoption and artificial means. The only thing they cannot do is naturally conceive children, which is also true of many straight couples, yet those couples are not disqualified from marriage.
3. Is it your position that the ONLY REASON for marriage is natural reproduction?
1. Two big ones. They create the next generation. They are less likely to be welfare recipients, drug users or school drop-outs in a caring mom and dad family.
2. I didn't say they couldn't. I said it was impossible for gay couples. Do you understand the difference?
3. My position isn't what counts. It's the government's position that one man one woman marriages will produce the next generation.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9041 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no national existing right for men to marry men or women to marry women. The existing right is one man to one woman. It is already extended to you. You can elect to remain single or marry in a state that allows it. Homosexual couples are not, never were and never will be like straight couples.
Except of course there IS a national right to marry whomever you want. That right is merely restricted depending on which state you live in. Doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

But be patient, same-sex couples will soon be able to exercise their right to marry in every state; likely within 3-5 years.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9042 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a special right; it expands an existing right to a greater group of people.
There's no reason, nor need to "expand" an existing right that covers all men and women.
Traditional marriage laws segregate opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Allow SSM *reduces* segregation.
SSM is gender segregated marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9043 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The government has no interest in gay marriage. The government has an interest in tradition marriage, in fact, many interests. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage but it is impossible for gay couples. There is no reason for them to marry.
Procreation is also impossible for an elderly opposite-sex couple or an infertile opposite-sex couple, so by your logic there is no reason for them to marry either.

The govt's interest is in marriage- regardless of the gender of the couple or their ability to procreate. Marriage provides stability and results in happier & healthier & wealthier and therefore more productive citizens.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9044 Nov 13, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay couples are capable of having children through adoption and artificial means. The only thing they cannot do is naturally conceive children, which is also true of many straight couples, yet those couples are not disqualified from marriage.
First, it's not "straight" couples, but opposite sex. Second, human reproduction is sexual, marriage developed as a means of addressing that. Lastly, opposite sex couples who cannot, nor will not procreate, are not barred from marrying because marriage is an opposite sex union.
Is it your position that the ONLY REASON for marriage is natural reproduction?
Pretty much, yes. Remove that, and marriage as we know it doesn't exist.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9045 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
1. Two big ones. They create the next generation. They are less likely to be welfare recipients, drug users or school drop-outs in a caring mom and dad family.
You are rationalizing again, Wondering. Legal marriage is not necessary for procreation. Fully 40% of childbirths in this country are to out of wedlock mothers. The state does not intervene. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
The state allows divorce, even in cases where there are children. The state allows adoption, in fact the vast majority of states also allow gay adoption.
The simple fact remains that there is no correlation between procreation or child rearing, and legal marriage.
Wondering wrote:
2. I didn't say they couldn't. I said it was impossible for gay couples. Do you understand the difference?
Do you understand in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and adoption? Wake up and smell the 20th century, Wondering. After all, it would be unrealistic to expect you to come completely up to speed all at once.
What is more, a couple need have no intention of having or raising children to legally marry.
Wondering wrote:
3. My position isn't what counts.
Did you figure that out all on your own, or did you have help?
Wondering wrote:
It's the government's position that one man one woman marriages will produce the next generation.
No, it isn't. The government has no prerequisite nor requirement of procreation, or even the ability to do so, in order to legally marry.

Were you argument a valid one, then infertile heterosexual couples could not marry, and that simply is not the case. The fact remains that your argument is not a valid one.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9046 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no reason, nor need to "expand" an existing right that covers all men and women.
We need to do so in order to comply with the US Constitution. The reality is that this will come to pass, because those like yourself, can offer no valid argument against it, nor can you offer a compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from marrying that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM is gender segregated marriage.
Hmmm, stealing plays from Brian_g's "How to lose an argument" playbook?

Why are you against freedom, free exercise of speech and religion, and freedom of association?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9047 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They could have been married and it wouldn't change either. Any negative impact was self-inflicted.
That's about the most ignorant statement you've made so far; and that's saying a lot.

Had my uncle been able to marry, he wouldn't have had to sell the home & farm he shared with his partner after he died suddenly. As a spouse he would have been exempt from paying the estate tax.

That's just one example.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9048 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Two big ones. They create the next generation. They are less likely to be welfare recipients, drug users or school drop-outs in a caring mom and dad family.
Your first one isn't true. The next generation would be created regardless of whether or not marriage existed at all.

As for your second point, you're saying children in a married parental environment do better than children in an unmarried parental environment? Well gay couples have children too (previously relationships, adoption, artificial means), so your second point supports SSM.
Wondering wrote:
2. I didn't say they couldn't. I said it was impossible for gay couples. Do you understand the difference?
It's impossible for many straight couples, yet they are not prevented from getting married. If your rule is going to be "has children naturally together", you must apply it equally, and prevent any infertile/impotent/elderly straight couple from marrying. You must also revoke the marriages of straight couples who refuse to have children.
Wondering wrote:
3. My position isn't what counts. It's the government's position that one man one woman marriages will produce the next generation.
You're evading. Answer the question. And SSM is already recognized by a large portion of the nation's government, so clearly that isn't the government's position.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9049 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no reason, nor need to "expand" an existing right that covers all men and women.
It doesn't adequately cover any gay men or women, as it's defined in a way to be non-functional for them. The reasons to allow gay couples to marry are the same as those for straight couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM is gender segregated marriage.
And up is down. And war is peace. And black is white.

SSM removes segregation by treating more people equally.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9050 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Two big ones. They create the next generation. They are less likely to be welfare recipients, drug users or school drop-outs in a caring mom and dad family.
2. I didn't say they couldn't. I said it was impossible for gay couples. Do you understand the difference?
3. My position isn't what counts. It's the government's position that one man one woman marriages will produce the next generation.
You got one thing right- your position doesn't count.

Many married same-sex couples are producing the next generation as well, they're just doing it with assistance.

The federa govt and 14 (soon to be 16) state govts recognize those married couples the same way they do opposite-sex married couples.

And there is STILL no evidence kids raised by same-sex couples turn out any different than kids raised by opposite-sex couples.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#9051 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it's not "straight" couples, but opposite sex. Second, human reproduction is sexual, marriage developed as a means of addressing that. Lastly, opposite sex couples who cannot, nor will not procreate, are not barred from marrying because marriage is an opposite sex union.
Marriage developed for many reasons. Control over sexual reproduction. Ownership of women. Political utility. Personal commitment.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Pretty much, yes. Remove that, and marriage as we know it doesn't exist.
Then, by your reasoning, those opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate should not be able to marry. They are not fulfilling the "sole reason" for marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9052 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no reason, nor need to "expand" an existing right that covers all men and women.
<quoted text>
SSM is gender segregated marriage.
Just like there was no reason nor need to expand it when inter-racial couples were banned from marrying, because it already covered all men and all women?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9053 Nov 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it's not "straight" couples, but opposite sex. Second, human reproduction is sexual, marriage developed as a means of addressing that. Lastly, opposite sex couples who cannot, nor will not procreate, are not barred from marrying because marriage is an opposite sex union.
<quoted text>
Pretty much, yes. Remove that, and marriage as we know it doesn't exist.
Not anymore; marriage now includes same-sex unions as well.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9054 Nov 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is also impossible for an elderly opposite-sex couple or an infertile opposite-sex couple, so by your logic there is no reason for them to marry either.
Sure there is. An opposite sex couple who cannot, nor will not procreate, still reinforces the marital norm, that marriage is a union of the sexes, and yes what their union produces, children. Some couples who thought procreation impossible for them, find themselves in a "family way". A same sex union does not contribute, nor reinforce that societal norm.
The govt's interest is in marriage- regardless of the gender of the couple or their ability to procreate. Marriage provides stability and results in happier & healthier & wealthier and therefore more productive citizens.
Marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, provides stability for them, the children they produce, and society at large. There's never been a need for men to marry men, women to marry women, or to designate a same sex relationship "marriage".

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.

Top Stories - Gay Marriage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clint Eastwood backs gay marriage in Supreme Co... (Mar '13) May '17 Norwegian Supremacy 73
News Indiana woman who fought gay marriage ban dies ... (Feb '15) Mar '17 Coultergeist 7
Same sex marriage (Oct '16) Oct '16 student1996 1
News Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions (Oct '14) Oct '16 Rosa_Winkel 6,428
News Alabama chief justice removed from bench for de... (Sep '16) Oct '16 Imprtnrd 27
News Mexicans march for gay marriage, day after oppo... (Sep '16) Sep '16 Holy Silicon Wafer 2
News Judge blocks Mississippi law on objections to g... (Jul '16) Jul '16 rabbee yehoshooah... 4
More from around the web