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.

Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#21163 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are you to determine what is "FAIR" as it relates to this? If consenting adults wish to form a family of husband wife, wife, wife, and wife, with children, that is fair to them.
What are your answers to these questions?
Do you object to a man having multiple baby's mamas? Or is that acceptable because it's not a "patriarch"?
Wanting more? The wives seem to having no problem sharing a husband.....how is that different from them sharing a baby's daddy?
I don't have to determine what's Fair, it's obvious that it isn't by simple mathematics. I'm not 'objecting' to anything, it's just YOU or Frankie haven't been convincing and the only links you've provided, do look like Patriarchs. Can you name ONE known family where it's ONE woman with multiple husbands? The only thing I object to, is trying to lump Polygamy with gay rights. You haven't done any of the work at proving or promoting your cause and simply want a free ride to acceptance.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#21164 Jan 24, 2014
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to determine what's Fair, it's obvious that it isn't by simple mathematics. I'm not 'objecting' to anything, it's just YOU or Frankie haven't been convincing and the only links you've provided, do look like Patriarchs. Can you name ONE known family where it's ONE woman with multiple husbands? The only thing I object to, is trying to lump Polygamy with gay rights. You haven't done any of the work at proving or promoting your cause and simply want a free ride to acceptance.
Actually, given the incompetence of Socialism, I'm betting that polygamy is their next big move to extract money from the super-rich and get more women out of poverty. Too bad the super-rich only want gratification so like most Socialist plans it will result in worse conditions later as more women become "damaged goods" and are cast aside.
Professor Kingsfield

Sweden

#21165 Jan 24, 2014
Your anti-defamation league SAAD blew up in the sky for all to see on its first mission to Uranus.

Don't let a poor child be bought and paid for by two homosexual parents named David Copafeel and Oliver Twist.

"Make no mistake, Utah was a HUGE setback."--New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin

And that's why you're stuck at 17 for the FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#21167 Jan 24, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, given the incompetence of Socialism, I'm betting that polygamy is their next big move to extract money from the super-rich and get more women out of poverty. Too bad the super-rich only want gratification so like most Socialist plans it will result in worse conditions later as more women become "damaged goods" and are cast aside.
Did you enjoy the socialist snow plow that cleared your streets?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#21168 Jan 24, 2014
Professor Kingsfield wrote:
"Make no mistake, Utah was a HUGE setback."--New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin
That is one man's assessment. However, another might observe that the court's willingness to intervene in granting a stay, all but ensures that the case will be accepted to be heard upon appeal. Given the broad scope of the initial ruling (decided under a rational basis test), which is unlikely to be overturned upon appeal to the 10th Circuit, this could be the case that becomes the national standard.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21169 Jan 24, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What one restriction? Is that the restriction against more than one partner? I think it IS!
We've already been through all this. The courts tend to expect clarity in a law. What's required here is community confirmation that homosexuality is either normal biological behavior based on Evolution, or it is a behavioral abnormality not worthy of Constitutional protection anymore than protecting the mentally handicapped's right to become air traffic controllers, or the blind becoming becoming airplane pilots.
No, I'm not seeing much clarity. I'm seeing politics and sadly, the science community is doing a disservice to the community by supporting Socialism because they tend to get their money from dat gubbermint funding. Researchers prefer to be on the government payroll because the government doesn't restrict their efforts to the short-term profit agendas that businesses tend to define for them.
Simply put, SHOW ME the Evolutionary reason supporting homosexuality and SHOW ME how it has overridden the obvious disadvantage of wasting calories and efforts to protect one's partner(s) in the non-reproductive relationships that gays engage in? Sure, you CAN find examples of exceptional gays in our history, but are they so few and far between that they are a liability to the collective efforts of the tribe?
It's a slippery slope. For the most part, the only real logic I can offer is that homosexuality is an undesirable recessive trait that we may not want to purge from the system, but if gays aren't going to reproduce anyway, then there's no real reason to support those who don't support their own genetic line.
Personally, I still think that Socialist support of breeding is a perversion of the community that is only exists to keep the status-quo and the aristocracy in power. I can't override the democratic will of the community, but if our aristocracy has crushed the family to the point where marriage is no longer practically available to the real working class, not just the la-la's in upper middle-class neighborhoods that don't ever get punished by the law anyway, then this abomination of democracy needs to be shut down. Time will tell!
No, equal protection requires nothing of the sort.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21170 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember when unreasonable bigots said the same exact thing about SSM? We do.
Here, let me refresh your memory using your own words.- "They all get to marry one person of opposite gender, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender.
You are now the unreasonable bigot. Congratulations! You have come a long way baby!
The obvious difference being that "logic" didn't stand up in court, which is why same-sex couples can now exercise their right to marry in 17 states.

Until polygamists can establish that they are similarly situated to a couple seeking to marry, they'll never have an equal protection argument.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21171 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do you insist "polygamy is losing in court after court, and state after state!" Perhaps I need to re post your many posts insisting that?
I was referring to the anti-gays losing in court after court and state after state.

Perhaps you need to learn context.

To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a case challenging the ban on polygamy for over 100 years.

Gee, I wonder why that is?....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21172 Jan 24, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were a judge, and had to grant custody to one gay parent or the other, and say, if the child is adopted, what would you base your decision on?
It's not a "But what about the children!?" question. It's about legal precedent based on cultural values as implied or specified when a law is created. So you're a married couple sharing money and resources, and now you want a divorce. WHAT is the basis of that marriage? Should we ban gay married couples from raising children now? I think they'd be up in arms if we did so we need to know the meaning of the relationship when kids are in the deal, just as we would with polygamist groups when the contract needs to be broken.
You're just tap dancing around the issues yet again.
Simple, it would be based on what is best for the child; which parent could better provide for the financial, emotional, & physical needs of the child.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21173 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like gays are less promiscuous! Too funny. Gay men have more sex partners than any other group dummy. Nothing wrong with that but it's a fact.
Proof?

Either way, it's irrelevant to the claim that society approves of men impregnating multiple women out of wedlock.

You REALLY need to learn how to comprehend context.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21174 Jan 24, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, most of your Judeo-Christian society doesn't approve of it. Many other cultures are fine with it. Mormons are fine with it and they like to call themselves Christians.
Now, let's take a moment to consider some amendments OTHER than the 14th Amendment, like the 1st one! Seems that mattered a bit because they thought it up so early. Now, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. WHY do you think polygamy should be outlawed?
.....and DO try to stay away from the anecdotal and your personal opinions on this!
You ask why I think polygamy should be outlawed but don't want me to give you my personal opinion on it?

Do you even understand the definition of "opinion"?

Yeah, that WAS about the dumbest thing you've said so far.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21175 Jan 24, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> I reckon you is one of the smartest ones who wants gays and lisbins to marry. This Rose feller done wrote that when two people marries up they don't have to do the sex thing. I can see that. A feller and a woman just ain't interested in doing it but they would like to divvy up the expenses and have somebody to hang around with. Makes sense to me. But what if one of them has the wanting to do sex that nature puts in us. Would it be alright to find another woman and do it with her or if it is two gays to find another gay to do it with?
That's obviously between the couple in question and is nobody's business.

MILLIONS of people- straight & gay- either cheat on their spouses or have open relationships.

That's their choice and none of the government's business.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#21176 Jan 24, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you saw the forum title "Gay marriage", did you wonder, "What's marriage"?
I thought it meant happy marriage....as to "What's marriage"? That's easy, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Although polygamous marriage has been part of numerous cultures throughout time and place.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21177 Jan 24, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
I keeps tryng to make a sympol point. And that is that most of us normal people don't care what the gays and lisbins dose if they dose it in private and it they keeps private things to thei sefs. Dose I go around telling ever body that I has gots a wife and a couple of good kids? Dose I tell people what the wife and I dose when we is in our bedroom at home. No I don't. Some gays and lesbins like to throw what they dose in our faces and that is what causes trouble for them. I likes a chaw of backer. Dose you thinks that I takes my spit toon arund with me and chaws in public? I knows that it is nasty and backer juice can run down my chin. I chaws at home. Don't no body know that I chaws and that is the way that I wants it. That is what them gays and lesbins should do.
You'd have a better chance of getting your "sympol point" across if you wrote in standard English with proper spelling and punctuation.

Your game is getting tiresome.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21178 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
HEAR HEAR! Well put.
If a woman wants to marry a man with two other wives IT'S HER OWN DAMN CHOICE, not Mikey's or X Breath's or Sheeple's.
Why do these clowns think a man marrying his consenting adult baby mamas is their business all the while telling us their choice of marriage is not our business? Why is it bad if a man marries his baby mamas?
Sheepie says because they are forced baby marriages, X-Breath says because I am stupid, poof says duh. Rose_NoHo says because polygamy is not an equal rights issue, it just isn't.
Oy vey!(I am Yiddish-Italian American)
Gee, and if a man want to marry a horse, IT'S HIS OWN DAMN CHOICE!

Yeah, that logic works so well.....

Society decides who can and can't marry.

If you really want polygamists to be able to marry multiple partners at once, you're going to have to convince society it's the right thing to do.

Obviously you've done a very poor job of that so far.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21179 Jan 24, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the least bit interested in polygamy.
Polyandry, on the other hand, has a certain alure.
Polyandry is polygamy. duh.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21180 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it meant happy marriage....as to "What's marriage"? That's easy, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Although polygamous marriage has been part of numerous cultures throughout time and place.
That may be your definition of marriage, but obviously it's not the sole definition of marriage.
.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#21181 Jan 24, 2014
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to determine what's Fair, it's obvious that it isn't by simple mathematics. I'm not 'objecting' to anything,
"Simple mathematics? Would you feel better if more men were added? Group marriage?
it's just YOU or Frankie haven't been convincing and the only links you've provided, do look like Patriarchs.
So would you prefer a matriarch?
Can you name ONE known family where it's ONE woman with multiple husbands?
Sigh....Mikey...you seem like a smart lad...try to think outside the androgynous box here. Don't apply male mating characteristics to women, because it's not a two way street. Men and women have different functions and attitudes in regards to reproduction. The male produce the sperm to impregnate the female. Once she is impregnated, she's set for the next few months. He can move on to the next woman if he so chooses.

Polyandry is relatively rare among human societies, and places where it has been practiced, it was because of the shortage of women. Brothers would share a wife, and thus both would be related to the child. As for modern times, not too many women would want to perform "wifely duties" for more than one husband. At least one husband would have to be a chiropractor.
Remember the Mormon wife saying, "One night on, six nights off"!
The only thing I object to, is trying to lump Polygamy with gay rights. You haven't done any of the work at proving or promoting your cause and simply want a free ride to acceptance.
Hellloooooooo...they're connected by the simple fact that each seeks a fundamental change in the definition of legal marriage as a union of ONE man AND ONE woman as husband and wife. SSMers want the state to drop the "AND" part, and polygamists want "ONE" dropped. Soooooo....yeah...they are connected.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21182 Jan 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Frankie, you are an idiot, who cannot count.
Congratulations, you're a moron.
<quoted text>
Dear dumb s***, that has no relevance to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Grow a brain.
Have you met Frankie, they are similarly born sans brain. Your two might really hit it off. That is, if he can deal with your condition.
I can count fine you silly goose! You're just too stupid to come up with a valid reason to deny marriage equality so you got silly and said I can't count is a reason.

Clue- Frankie's arithmetic skills are irrelevant to marriage equality.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#21183 Jan 24, 2014
garylloyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Missy, this is an adult forum.
The Justice Beiber forum is in the other section.
Now beat it before you mom finds out and grounds you.
Sanctimonious, self righteous bloviating gasbag that you are means you must be a Rethuglican....stay klassy, creep.

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 Global backlash grows against Trump's immigrati... 10 min inbred Genius 2,346
News Trump: African-American history museum is 'fant... 12 min inbred Genius 59
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 min Julia 63,294
News Texas border residents mixed over whether they ... 29 min DC Dave 6
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 35 min Tm Cln 3,025
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 39 min inbred Genius 1,369
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 51 min Deport Sassy 258,814
More from around the web