Gay marriage

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.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4299 Jun 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm refering to the continuity of the strategy, not the biology.
DO NOT attempt to speak for me. But, if you want to present a counter argument, feel free to do so. So far, no gay rights supporter is even slightly willing to discuss the possibility that their obsession is a mental disorder, a minor one, but a disorder none the less, and certainly NOT any kind of Libertarian ideal that all citizens need to support as if all reason were based on it.
.....!
No mainstream medical organizations believes that being gay is any kind of disorder - it's simply a variation. It's not learned, not harmful in any way, and not catching. Doesn't harm the gay person in any way, and doesn't harm society.

Kind of a weird "disorder", there.

And why in the world would it be any more of an "obsession" than being heterosexual? Sex makes up a very tiny portion of most of our lives. However, who we marry makes a much larger difference.

If you want a discussion, you need to at least start with the facts.

And, really, if you truly believe that someone else's natural and harmless sexual orientation is a disorder, then why in the world would you promote NOT allowing them the same basic civil and human rights you enjoy, based only on that?

Do you believe that no human with any "disorder" should ever be able to marry someone they love, because you believe that society should persecute them?

Wouldn't that be a large percentage of the population?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4300 Jun 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The continuity of of biological strategy is something that you'll completely deny no matter the overwhelming evolutionary logic of it.
But what does this idea of yours have to do with civil marriage law?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4301 Jun 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
......
You've spent the last week talking about the tax code on this thread, perhaps hoping to "bond". Nobody wants to bond with a gay. They know where that ALWAYS goes.
.!
You aren't making much sense here, since the tax code is deeply entwined in marriage law - for ALL married couples. Of course it's on topic.

And your odd idea that straight people don't "bond" with gay folks is downright silly.

We have straight parents, siblings, relatives, and friends - people who know us and love us dearly. We have straight co-workers, neighbors, and fellow church-goers. The majority of Americans want us to be able to legally marry.

Do you live in a cave somewhere?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4302 Jun 26, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
there is a lot of evidence that dinosaurs, including T. Rex are the ancestors of modern birds.
For one thing, like birds they are warm-blooded, not cold-blooded like reptiles. Also, like birds, they sported feathers. There's slso DNA & protein evidence.
See here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/...
That's mostly THEORY, not a fact. It's probably not completely accurate either. Only some dinosaurs had feathers as demonstrated by the fossil evidence, and the warm-blooded theories are mostly based on predator/prey ratios where more prey are required to support warm-blooded predators.

There's a sound logic to those numbers, but I'd propose that there are distinct differences between warm-blooded dinosaurs and birds, just as one would find distinct biochemistry and neural feedback differences between marsupials and placental mammals.

THAT is continuity of biology. Complex changes in biology do not happen like throwing a switch. Without understanding the biology, conjecturing on strategy has no meaning. Like biology, strategy is based on numerous factors and it is irresponsible to parse them down to individual traits without understanding the bigger picture.

Sorry, but this debate has yet to go beyond lowbrow bigotry against the more conservative elements of our culture. Like Evolution, it is not the parent species' responsibility to support the deviants in their random acts of experimenting with new strategies.

So, now you have an example of continuity of strategy. You have a debate point that our government exists as an extension of survival strategy and by that nature, has a greater obligation to stick with the conventional rather than endorse the unproven.

Let the individual take risks if they don't like the conventional, but don't expect the government to support their actions. The government's only obligation is to not interfere with your behavior as long as you don't interfere with the civilly and legally accepted actions of others.

By making the simple assumption that the government does not exist to engage in social engineering, the debate for gay marriage is completely absurd. The crime is that the government DOES support heterosexual marriage in a financially prejudicial way.

You're fighting the wrong fight. I know! You want to "get" those Christians! It's the wrong fight.....but you are going to USE IT! YOU WILL use it.. any.... any.... any..... EVERY WAY!!!

Politicians love their obsessive-compulsives. But you can't stop! You CAN NEVER STOP! USE IT!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4303 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But what does this idea of yours have to do with civil marriage law?
What does homosexuality have to do with civil marriage law?

YOU WILL go on denying the argument! YOU WILL!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4304 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No mainstream medical organizations believes that being gay is any kind of disorder - it's simply a variation. It's not learned, not harmful in any way, and not catching. Doesn't harm the gay person in any way, and doesn't harm society.
Kind of a weird "disorder", there.
And why in the world would it be any more of an "obsession" than being heterosexual? Sex makes up a very tiny portion of most of our lives. However, who we marry makes a much larger difference.
If you want a discussion, you need to at least start with the facts.
And, really, if you truly believe that someone else's natural and harmless sexual orientation is a disorder, then why in the world would you promote NOT allowing them the same basic civil and human rights you enjoy, based only on that?
Do you believe that no human with any "disorder" should ever be able to marry someone they love, because you believe that society should persecute them?
Wouldn't that be a large percentage of the population?
The AMA just announced that obesity is now a disease. I don't really care what the medical profession of this country thinks.
We pay more for medicine than any other country and rate somewhere around 50th place for the quality of service. They are a disgrace of greed and political prejudice, like most of America. This will only end when the aristocracy of America is broken, never to recover. You're just getting in the way.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4305 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't making much sense here, since the tax code is deeply entwined in marriage law - for ALL married couples. Of course it's on topic.
And your odd idea that straight people don't "bond" with gay folks is downright silly.
We have straight parents, siblings, relatives, and friends - people who know us and love us dearly. We have straight co-workers, neighbors, and fellow church-goers. The majority of Americans want us to be able to legally marry.
Do you live in a cave somewhere?
Yep! The tax code is prejudiced in favor of the married. I'll be glad to remove those prejudicial laws. The average breeder would rather ride that gravy train. They will have to be punished.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4306 Jun 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What does homosexuality have to do with civil marriage law?
YOU WILL go on denying the argument! YOU WILL!
The exact same thing that heterosexuality has to do with marriage law.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

And first, you need to make a logical argument. Can you do that? Can you prove that gay couples should not be allowed to legally marry? Show it harms them? Show it harms their kids? Show it harms other people? Show that marriage harms the elderly?

Give it a try.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4307 Jun 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The AMA just announced that obesity is now a disease. I don't really care what the medical profession of this country thinks.
We pay more for medicine than any other country and rate somewhere around 50th place for the quality of service. They are a disgrace of greed and political prejudice, like most of America. This will only end when the aristocracy of America is broken, never to recover. You're just getting in the way.
So, you base your ideas only on personal opinion, and not on any medical facts? Okaaaaay ...

Other taxpayers are getting in the way? How does that work?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4308 Jun 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! The tax code is prejudiced in favor of the married. I'll be glad to remove those prejudicial laws. The average breeder would rather ride that gravy train. They will have to be punished.
Odd post. Who is suggesting that any straight folks with kids be punished, other than you? All gay folks are saying is that the laws should not be directed at harming our families.

And doesn't society benefit when families are secure and kids protected?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4309 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't making much sense here, since the tax code is deeply entwined in marriage law - for ALL married couples. Of course it's on topic.
And your odd idea that straight people don't "bond" with gay folks is downright silly.
We have straight parents, siblings, relatives, and friends - people who know us and love us dearly. We have straight co-workers, neighbors, and fellow church-goers. The majority of Americans want us to be able to legally marry.
Do you live in a cave somewhere?
BTW - Since I really answered most of your questions before I even got to your posts, why don't you consider the possibility that it might be you who is living in a cave somewhere.

A more "conservative" individual would have already thought about all these things, understand the biological sciences, and certainly wouldn't just be calling gays "perverts", or bumping nozzles over the tax code.

A conservative would not be an impulsive hypocrite. The nature of Conservatism isn't just about doing everything the old way. The Republican Party preaches that simply because they exploit simple people's desire to find comfort in that which they are familiar with.

Now, assuming that you've been on the periphery of Liberalism, I'm sure that you have new ideas that you find to be of value to the community. Feel free to share them with us!.......or is this all about you?
The Troll Stopper

United States

#4310 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>The exact same thing that heterosexuality has to do with marriage law.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

And first, you need to make a logical argument. Can you do that? Can you prove that gay couples should not be allowed to legally marry? Show it harms them? Show it harms their kids? Show it harms other people? Show that marriage harms the elderly?

Give it a try.
Can you prove that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry? Show it does not harm them? Show it does not harm their kids? Show it does not harm other people? Show that marriage does not harm the elderly?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4311 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The exact same thing that heterosexuality has to do with marriage law.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
And first, you need to make a logical argument. Can you do that? Can you prove that gay couples should not be allowed to legally marry? Show it harms them? Show it harms their kids? Show it harms other people? Show that marriage harms the elderly?
Give it a try.
You're not making ANY sense!

Why is it so hard for you to make sense?

Go ahead and get married! Just don't expect my government to endorse your ritual or your lifestyle.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4312 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you base your ideas only on personal opinion, and not on any medical facts? Okaaaaay ...
Other taxpayers are getting in the way? How does that work?
Nope! Not making ANY sense! What does the medical profession have to do with taxpayers?

BTW - Since when don't I have a right to an opinion? I have EVERY RIGHT to MY opinion and MY vote will reflect MY opinion. Too bad for you if you can't convince me to change my opinion.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4313 Jun 26, 2013
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry? Show it does not harm them? Show it does not harm their kids? Show it does not harm other people? Show that marriage does not harm the elderly?
We've already pointed out that this isn't about proving a negative. Gay rights fanatics don't listen. It's not worth wasting time on the distraction.

The point was made. The government's role is an extension of biological survival strategy, but only through a democratic process that protects the individual rights of its citizens.

Every yahoo out there talks about civil rights, but has no clue about how our government is supposed to work. I don't have time to teach them. I'm quite content to break the whole system and community that has failed anyway.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4314 Jun 26, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd post. Who is suggesting that any straight folks with kids be punished, other than you? All gay folks are saying is that the laws should not be directed at harming our families.
And doesn't society benefit when families are secure and kids protected?
No, actually I don't think society benefits when families are secure and kids protected.

Didn't Ben Franklin say something to that effect?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I know! "If you don't support Gay marriage then the terrorists win." Right?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4315 Jun 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
lides believes HRC's cover story, I believe Huffington Post since they published the 2008 Schedule B with IRS processing edits on the web.
Let the FBI investigate.
No, I believe you are an idiot, who has no idea what they are talking about.
"Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990 , including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...
Anonymous

Saint Paul, MN

#4316 Jun 26, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's mostly THEORY, not a fact. It's probably not completely accurate either. Only some dinosaurs had feathers as demonstrated by the fossil evidence, and the warm-blooded theories are mostly based on predator/prey ratios where more prey are required to support warm-blooded predators.
There's a sound logic to those numbers, but I'd propose that there are distinct differences between warm-blooded dinosaurs and birds, just as one would find distinct biochemistry and neural feedback differences between marsupials and placental mammals.
THAT is continuity of biology. Complex changes in biology do not happen like throwing a switch. Without understanding the biology, conjecturing on strategy has no meaning. Like biology, strategy is based on numerous factors and it is irresponsible to parse them down to individual traits without understanding the bigger picture.
Sorry, but this debate has yet to go beyond lowbrow bigotry against the more conservative elements of our culture. Like Evolution, it is not the parent species' responsibility to support the deviants in their random acts of experimenting with new strategies.
So, now you have an example of continuity of strategy. You have a debate point that our government exists as an extension of survival strategy and by that nature, has a greater obligation to stick with the conventional rather than endorse the unproven.
Let the individual take risks if they don't like the conventional, but don't expect the government to support their actions. The government's only obligation is to not interfere with your behavior as long as you don't interfere with the civilly and legally accepted actions of others.
By making the simple assumption that the government does not exist to engage in social engineering, the debate for gay marriage is completely absurd. The crime is that the government DOES support heterosexual marriage in a financially prejudicial way.
You're fighting the wrong fight. I know! You want to "get" those Christians! It's the wrong fight.....but you are going to USE IT! YOU WILL use it.. any.... any.... any..... EVERY WAY!!!
Politicians love their obsessive-compulsives. But you can't stop! You CAN NEVER STOP! USE IT!
Amen Brother!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4317 Jun 26, 2013
The issue isn't NOM's filing status the issue is stealing their filing from the IRS and giving it to the HRC and Huffington Post. It doesn't matter that NOM is a 501(c)(4), it's a filer like all the rest of us.

Would it have been more of a crime if it had been a leak of your tax filings?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4318 Jun 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't NOM's filing status the issue is stealing their filing from the IRS and giving it to the HRC and Huffington Post. It doesn't matter that NOM is a 501(c)(4), it's a filer like all the rest of us.
Would it have been more of a crime if it had been a leak of your tax filings?
a) You have not proven it was stolen.
b) You seem to lack the ability to understand that the form 990 Schedule B in question is public information.
c) You can only prove the HRC produced the FEC filing, which similarly is public information.
d) You are merely reinforcing the notion that you aren't to terribly bright.

Don't worry, NOM won't exist much longer, their mission shall become moot with future decisions, and their funding will dry up as acceptance sets in. Their fight against the rights of fellow citizens is abhorrent, and they and their donor should be ashamed of themselves.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min River Tam 25,227
News Trump to GOP: Pass health care bill or seal you... 5 min jonjedi 91
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min USAsince1680 1,508,457
News Global backlash grows against Trump's immigrati... 6 min katrina 3,394
News Ivanka Trump: A White House force, just not an ... 8 min jonjedi 52
News Analysis: Trump the dealmaker struggles to seal... 12 min jonjedi 25
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 13 min ha ha good night 239,358
News Young Americans: Most see Trump as illegitimate... 35 min Jim-ca 656
News Comey: FBI probing links between Russia, Trump ... 49 min Texas 353
Gay Skype !! 1 hr Davesmithgay 77
More from around the web