Gay marriage

There are 61385 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.

mstee

United States

#15656 Dec 24, 2013
may GOD have mercy on you, but you have gone far, think of hereafter, either you like it ir not you most die one day and only your good deeds will save you. why God created us male and female? look at all the creatures is either male or female! naive think twice, say what you want do as you loke one day you will remain a history.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#15657 Dec 24, 2013
+
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep claiming polygamists are "good people seeking happiness" as if that's relevant.
If being a "good person" is relevant to a claim of marriage rights, then you'll have to actually prove they're "good people".
Why does anyone have to prove that polygamists are "good" people?

Of course, why does anyone have to prove that gays are "good" people? No need to!

The problem is "Why are single people assumed to be BAD people who should be taxed unfairly?" I never asked my government to subsidize breeding. I don't want them to. Does that make me "bad"?

It's just another weasel topic. I can set you up with yet another yes/no question that you absolutely refuse to answer but I'd rather cut to the chase.

You want dat gubbermint money!

Some day, you'll sell your soul to the G-man but for now, you would be pleased as punch to sell someone else's first.

I guess you ARE a bad person after all.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#15658 Dec 24, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe. I've dealt with ignorant-ass black woman like Rose all of my life. Logic and reason mean nothing to these bimbos. She's an Obama supporter and Obama says homosexuality is cool so she appoints herself his messenger and is here to spread the Gospel.
She's not here to discuss and debate; She's here to force queer Obama down our throats.
Meanwhile, Obama is absolutely wrong on homosexuality. He's wrong because he knows absolutely nothing about it. He's wrong because he's sending a message to millions of black youth that will get them sick and kill them.
Obama is a puppet. He started off being distinctly hands-off on Gay rights but a few arrogant Black ministers decided that they were going to instruct HIM on his politics.

Combine that with the fanatical liberals who get up in his face like he's a deadbeat dad, who betrayed the li'l children what never knowed no father o' their own, the instant he strays from the path then well, he gave in and sold out. If you're a Democrat, you WILL follow the party line or they will personally demonize you. The Republicans aren't any better.

Final result is that when ever an elected official leaves office, they loot the public trust for everything they can and call it "spending the political capital". Expect the Gay Proclamation before this term is up.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15659 Dec 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, makes no difference is someone is bisexual or gay or straight.
All marriage laws are based on gender, not sexual orientation.
True....yet some states have chosen, or forced to change, their laws based on sexual orientation.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#15660 Dec 24, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a choice? Well, choose to be homosexual for 24 hours and let us know how it works out for you. OK?
Political in nature? How much do you have to drink to come up with these ideas?
I don't feel like being homosexual. I don't have to do so. My politics are just fine without carrying an offensive and bogus cross in an effort to get attention.

Stone cold sober!....Yes, POLITICAL!

Looking to come up with any other form of slander? Too bad I refuse to consider being a homosexual for a day. You WOULD use that, I'm sure. I'm sure that questioning someone's masculinity is one of the cornerstones of your personality. You really DON'T have a moral center. You just go where the wind takes you, and you feel rather good about that, eh?

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#15661 Dec 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Try google if you're uncertain.
I'm certain you have no definition for it -- that what you're talking about is a individual and group anyone can claim to be or be a part of. That's what the self-mortifying liberals don't get -- there's nothing specific about the identity of your members. There's not even a set of beliefs all members must share. There's nothing -- nothing except the person's word that he's homosexual, or bisexual, or transgender, or ...

Nutty? You betcha -- "Let's change the rules so that people we can't even define can do things the rules don't allow."

.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15662 Dec 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Legally speaking they ARE treated the same.
Which is why a same-sex couples can be similarly situated to an opposite-sex couple, but a polygamist grouping CAN'T.
That IS the crux of equal protection.
You're missing the point. Kody Brown and Mrs. Brown are similarly situated to any other husband and wife, as are Kody and the next Mrs Brown. All opposite sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15663 Dec 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True....yet some states have chosen, or forced to change, their laws based on sexual orientation.
As long as the laws are applied without regard to sexual orientation then it's equal treatment.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15664 Dec 24, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm certain you have no definition for it -- that what you're talking about is a individual and group anyone can claim to be or be a part of. That's what the self-mortifying liberals don't get -- there's nothing specific about the identity of your members. There's not even a set of beliefs all members must share. There's nothing -- nothing except the person's word that he's homosexual, or bisexual, or transgender, or ...
Nutty? You betcha -- "Let's change the rules so that people we can't even define can do things the rules don't allow."
.
Just like religion- which is also a constitutionally protected right.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15665 Dec 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the point. Kody Brown and Mrs. Brown are similarly situated to any other husband and wife, as are Kody and the next Mrs Brown. All opposite sex couples.
Correct.

And as a couple they are entitled to the same equal protection of marriage laws as any other couple.

They each get to have 1 legal spouse, just like every other couple.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#15666 Dec 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not, nor should sexual identity labels be used as a basis for marriage. Self professed labels should have no bearing on marriage, and how it's defined, a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Despite all your meaningless prattle about self professed labels, the definition you gave violates the 14th Amendment because it gives men and women different rights. A man can marry a man, but a woman can't. A woman can marry a man, but a man can't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As I have overestimates yours on numerous occasions, no need to appologize.
<quoted text>
Yet something as basic as sexuality, literally vital to the continuation of the species, lacked a identity component to it until the late 19th century. Seems rather odd. It's not some far off planet.
Do you have some kind of point? Or do you think you're clever and have made some new, yet meaningless, discovery?
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why the sudden need to redefine marriage, to designate a same sex relationship, "marriage"?
As opposed to a gradual need?
Again, what's your point?
Pietro Armando wrote:
What's not true, SSSB? Or the fact that those who engaged in such didn't acquire an identity associates with it until the late 19th century?
<quoted text>
It appears they didn't, and apparently wasn't important, nor necessary. SSSB still took place, and marriage was still a male female union.
<quoted text>
No need to redefine marriage based on sexual identity politics.
Whatever, idiot. I guess you think saying stuff like, "sexual identity politics" makes you sound intellectual.
There is a need to redefine marriage based on a violation of equal protection.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#15667 Dec 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not, nor should sexual identity labels be used as a basis for marriage. Self professed labels should have no bearing on marriage, and how it's defined, a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife...snip..\
You brought the "issue" up because it's not relevant?
OK...

Since: Jan 12

San Diego, CA

#15668 Dec 24, 2013
I'm an ally for the rights of gays to marry. Not because I feel it's right or wrong, I am very interested to see what effects this has on society. I'm a bit indifferent. Curious on the outcome though.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#15669 Dec 24, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't define what a homosexual is, how you you claim they're being denied "equal protection of the laws"?
You're really so stupid you don't know what "homosexual" means?
Oh, well.
Anyway, I don't base my argument on sexual orientation, but on gender.
I claim men and women are being denied equal protection.
Do you know what men and women are?
Or do I need to define them for you, too?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#15670 Dec 24, 2013
Sara wrote:
I'm 16 and I'm a white girl don't know why I'm on the African American forum or why this it?? Lol. anyyyywaaaayys... I don't , to be honest, understand the concept of being gay or lesbian.(Especially gay, because women are beautiful)... Because it seems so unnatural and honestly gross,(and kinda beside the point, but, unfulfilling sexually), but who am I to say that it not true it's all an act or hate for your opposite gender sexually.? I don't know that, because I'm straight. And although it seems sooooo unnatural to me sexually, I do know love is love and you can't help wat you want. You can't judge somebody based on their sexual preference because your closed minded and a religious brainwashed freak.
Great post. Excellent, actually.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#15671 Dec 24, 2013
Sara wrote:
And the sad thing is soooooo many people like 97%.of the world ( just a guesstimate) are religious, have a f$c**n religion. I had so many friends( most of em) that I just stopped being friends with because they started to creep me out with their beliefs, they're taking me to church ( not knowing I would end up in church that morning after I spent the night) I'm a little girl who knows I don't believe in religion being pretty much told by friends mom to go up nn drink "Christi blood" and eat "his body" ( crackers or watever) I said fuck that nn ran out lol. I was 9 and you people are 35 nn still believing all this shit and lettin your brains be controlled by this comical stuff.
You might find this site interesting:
http://www.evilbible.com/

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#15672 Dec 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like religion- which is also a constitutionally protected right.
Exactly -- homosexuality is a religion: a group of beliefs people choose to follow.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#15673 Dec 24, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I use an image of a black in my avatar -- you don't.
You use an in insulting image of a black person as your avatar.
My avatar is the NoHo gate. People of all races live here. It's a symbol of culture and fun.
garylloyd wrote:
Then when your stupidity reaches a point where you can't possibly be white, you let on that your black.
Again, I understand why you hate yourself. But why do you hate your entire race?
You're a worthless failure, but that's not because you are black. Why do you see all black people as stupid failures like you are? Smart people, of all races, learn from their mistakes and go forward.
garylloyd wrote:
You're a disgrace to black women everywhere. You're the most detested person in this forum.
And you're stupid as sin.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds, and idiots like garylloyd." - Albert Einstein
OK, he didn't say that garylloyd part, but, it's true.

:)

garylloyd

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#15674 Dec 24, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're really so stupid you don't know what "homosexual" means?
Oh, well.
Anyway, I don't base my argument on sexual orientation, but on gender.
I claim men and women are being denied equal protection.
Do you know what men and women are?
Or do I need to define them for you, too?
You're claiming a specific group -- homosexuals -- are being denied equal protection, yet can't even define what a homosexual is.

If you use Webster's and say it's a person who's sexual orientation is same sex, then you're defining homosexuals by what they do in bed which is sex cultism -- not personhood. Without personhood there's no claim that equal protection is being denied. People are not sex cultists; they're male or female.

So I ask you again -- define homosexual.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#15675 Dec 24, 2013
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
There you go repeating dumb LBGT rhetoric again. And in your blissful ignorance it never occurred to you that the crap you repeat is steeped in ignorance too. Honestly, Rose, what makes you think comparing left-handedness to sexual orientation is so spot on?
It's too complex for you to understand, but for others:
1. It's an attribute of a minority of people that is not a choice.
2. People have been hated and killed because they had that attribute.
(The word "sinister" basically means "left handed")
garylloyd wrote:
What makes you think someone with a brain thought that up?
Because I did.
garylloyd wrote:
That's not high intelligence at work; it's something you'd hear at the bathhouse while the boys are drying themselves off after the orgy.
But to you, it's Gospel, isn't it, Rose?
You are so stupid and bitter, it's funny.
Still waiting for you to get over me and come up with a rational argument against gay 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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Comey: FBI probing links between Russia, Trump ... 12 min TRUMP 45 236
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 19 min Calvin_Coolish 261,662
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 min Aura Mytha 220,530
News Trump Transition Team Communications Incidental... 45 min TRUMP 45 15
News Young Americans: Most see Trump as illegitimate... 1 hr jonjedi 604
News Anti-Islam note leaves Des Moines community shaken 1 hr 16 TEEN SHOTS 13
News 'This is a bizarre situation': John McCain says... 1 hr Retribution 20
More from around the web