Gay marriage

There are 20 comments on the Mar 28, 2013, Los Angeles Times story 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.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#53244 Jul 1, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually procreation is NOT a function of marriage......many folks can get pregnant WITHOUT ever getting married and many couples marry who CAN'T procreate for whatever reason!!!
"SAME-SEX" marriage simply DOESN'T exist......just like interracial marriage DOESN'T exist.........folks are just getting married!!!
Maybe you should have asked Reverend Al who it was who stated, "As it has been stated,..."

Anyone who uses a nic that close to mine is a troll who only wants to harass you.

And hey, what about those three Lesbians who got all got married to one another. You are exactly right, "folks are just getting married."

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#53245 Jul 1, 2014
Cali Girl 2014 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the LA? Who's stoned now??
That would be Anthony. "On the LA" now that's funny!

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#53246 Jul 1, 2014
GAY ???
Whats that exactly ? No i am serious .......... or i am illiterate ?
Who was the father of GAY ???
Mine and all human .......... ADAM was !
Remove your HAT , you will feel good and OK !

Judged:

16

16

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#53247 Jul 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>That would be Anthony. "On the LA" now that's funny!
He should talk about me LOL.....

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#53248 Jul 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I note that ss couples are inferior to marriage, and that homosexuality is a sexual defect. Those are just facts of reality.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I've listed why I make those claims.
Your denial is not a reasoned response.
Let me know when you have one.
Smile.
Speaking of defects, look in the mirror.
:)
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#53249 Jul 1, 2014
Reverend Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Blindness has hidden the obvious truth from you. As it has been stated, procreation is indeed a function of marriage. Only those who advocacy of same sex marriage exceeds common sense cannot see this.
All animals git kids by doing what a man and a woman dose. We is maid so that is the normal way that people is born and we has genarations of people. Peeople gits married and soon they has a family which has kids. Two homneysaxals can't do that. Homeysaxuals can not even have normal sex. If they is gays they gots to use mouths and butts. Ain't no kids born that way. What them gays dose ain't natural and normal. No amount of marrying up betwixt two mens or two womans is gonna make it normal.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#53250 Jul 1, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation can be a function of marriage
It can, and is, as those court ruling state.
, but has never been a requirement.
Nor did it ever need to be. Sex makes babies, it even made you. Marriage serves as a means of regulating, to an extent, the sexes, including what they do, have sex, coitus, and what results of it, children.

[QUOTE
Again, I say it's irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

But of course, SSM advocates almost have to take that position. Obviously two men, or two women, can sexually procreate with each other.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#53251 Jul 1, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually procreation is NOT a function of marriage......many folks can get pregnant WITHOUT ever getting married and many couples marry who CAN'T procreate for whatever reason!!!
So how the heck did all those courts, over the past 150 years plus, state otherwise?
"SAME-SEX" marriage simply DOESN'T exist..
[QUOTE]

It doesn't?!! That could be viewed a few different ways.

1.) You're right, it doesn't exist other than as a modern legal invention of the state.

2.) How can a marriage, the legally, culturally, socially, sexually, historically, and/or religiously recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, be "same sex"?

[QUOTE]
....just like interracial marriage DOESN'T exist.....
"By the power invested in me by the state, I now pronounce you 'husband AND wife' ".
....folks are just getting married!!!
Different form, function, and purpose.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
deutscher Stolz

Rheine, Germany

#53254 Jul 1, 2014
Hahaha you Americans are losing at this moment. You got raped by Belgium. Hahahaha.
I am watching this beautiful game to the end now.
It is nice to see the American loser team to lose.
The American players are ugly as well.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#53255 Jul 1, 2014
hahaha now you are out of the world Cup. We Germans are in the last eight and we have already won the world cup three times. You Americans have won the world cup zero times. hahaha

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#53256 Jul 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all Poo Poo Breath, just stating some facts. I know, facts, you hate them.
Oh but it IS an appeal to popularity, Rev Anal. Or do you not know what that is?

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1.Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2.Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#53257 Jul 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid question, you'll have to ask Poop1 those kinds of questions.
Not as stupid as "...reproduction is a function of marriage." Asking how people reproduced BEFORE there was marriage is perfectly logical question.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#53258 Jul 1, 2014
Nomad wrote:
<quoted text>
why?
It would rid our country of filth.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#53264 Jul 1, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It can, and is, as those court ruling state.
<quoted text>
Nor did it ever need to be. Sex makes babies, it even made you. Marriage serves as a means of regulating, to an extent, the sexes, including what they do, have sex, coitus, and what results of it, children.
<quoted text>
But of course, SSM advocates almost have to take that position. Obviously two men, or two women, can sexually procreate with each other.
Another one bites the dust. Kentucky even. Who'd a thunk it :)

Judge John G. Heyburn II, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, ruled that the state’s marriage ban violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples, but stayed his decision pending appeal.

“[A]s this Court has respectfully explained, in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted,” he wrote in his opinion.

In support of the ban, Beshear argued in part that Kentucky's prohibition encouraged, promoted and supported relationships among people who have the "natural ability to procreate." A stable birth rate ensures the state's long-term economic stability, Beshear argued in court records.

Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, dismissed the governor's argument because excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to marry and have children.

"These arguments are not those of serious people," Heyburn wrote.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/judge-strikes-down-k... #!63fGx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/w...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#53265 Jul 1, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us pretend for a second that you are right that homosexuality is a sexual defect and that when homosexuals get married that their marriage is inferior to a male/female marriage. Let us pretend, but just for a second.
Are there any other 'defects' that people are born with that you feel justified in trying to make their lives miserable? And in denying them full equality under the law? Is there any one else whose freedom and liberty you wish to abolish or restrict?
Please be specific.
Also whose fault is it that someone is born with a "sexual defect"? Why should people born with sexual defects be subjected to the cruel harassment you subject gay people to?
And why do you keep the discussion away from the fact that we live in a Constitutional Republic and that if I want to marry my gay cousin it is the responsibility of the Government to protect my right to do so?
How do you justify preventing people who have what you call a "sexual defect" the ability to exercise their right to form voluntary associations with other peaceful adult individuals?
I say you do not have the right to deny other people their rights. I say you have a responsibility to mind your own business. It is KKKrist-insanity that has made you what you are. You are a victim as much as you are a perp. You are engaged in a crime against humanity being here harassing gays 24/7.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If calling homosexuality a "birth defect" makes it easier for you, go ahead. Now that you've stipulated that homosexuality is a birth defect, what is your next logical recommendation? Generally speaking, we integrate people with birth defects into society to the greatest extent possible:
We try to cure the birth defect (as in the case of heart murmurs, for instance). But it's well-established that homosexuality cannot be "cured" through intervention. So we can cross that off our list.
In other cases, we do our best to help people live normal lives with prostheses, sound boards, motorized chairs, and other interventions that help them live normal lives. But no such interventions are necessary nor even helpful with homosexuality.
Often, a birth defect is not physically or mentally disabling, but presents visual or auditory challenges to others. We sometimes provide cosmetic cures for such people.
Homosexuality is in none of these categories: There are no effective treatments. Indeed, no treatment is either necessary nor desirable.
So why do you call it a defect? And what do you propose to do now that you've identified it as a defect?
Calling homosexuality a birth defect has nothing to do with me. Any effective prescription requires an honest diagnosis.

You begin to address the implications, but then quickly exposed your denial was still in place. I still must commend you because no one has even dared to begin to go in this direction.

Be honest. If homosexuality is a birth defect, how does that affect the issues we are dealing with right now?

Think about this. Instead of demanding that people deem it normal, they are challenged to be sensitive to a birth defect. A HUGE distinction!

Are you willing to try?

Judged:

22

22

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#53266 Jul 1, 2014
My response begins with, "Calling homosexuality a birth defect..."

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#53267 Jul 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
My response begins with, "Calling homosexuality a birth defect..."
You're nutty. You most likely have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#53268 Jul 1, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of defects, look in the mirror.
:)
Not only should KiMare look in the mirror but so should the cops in Georgia!

If you voted for someone who supports or supported the War on Drugs, you are responsible for this:

The Phonesavanh family has become the face of police brutality overnight, all in the name of the war on drugs. 19 month-old Bounkham Phonesavanh aka baby Bou Bou suffered life threatening injuries at the hands of the Habersham County Sheriffs Department. A no-knock warrant was served at the Phonesavanh's temporary residence.


As the sheriff's department gained entry, a flash stun grenade was tossed into a room occupied by four small children, landing in the play-pen of baby bou bou and exploded at point blank range. No drugs were seized, nor were there any arrests made. The treatment of this innocent family can only be described as criminal negligence, and those responsible for this tragedy must be held accountable.

ACLU Report

In Bou Bou's mother's own words, read what happened last night

http://www.justiceandprayersforboubou.org/

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#53269 Jul 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A HUGE distinction!
Are you willing to try?
You didn't answer my question: Are there any other 'defects' that people are born with that you feel justified in trying to make their lives miserable?

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#53270 Jul 1, 2014
KiMare wrote:
My response begins with, "Calling homosexuality a birth defect..."
I am not surprised you not only didn't answer my question, "Are there any other 'defects' that people are born with that you feel justified in trying to make their lives miserable?" but that you are now pretending that I called homosexuality a birth defect when I asserted it is a gift from God.

Homosexuality is a gift from God.

Now, Are there any other 'defects' that people are born with that you feel justified in trying to make their lives miserable?

And what part of "let's pretend for a second that you are right," didn't you understand?

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min Earthling-1 52,841
News Ben Affleck and the debate for Reparation conti... 12 min Big Knob 13
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min Tinka 1,219,663
News Kevin Kruse on corporations' courtship of Chris... 20 min Jade 1
News Loretta Lynch Heads for Confirmation as Attorne... 22 min Deo Vindice 20
News 'Deep-Seated Cultural Codes, Religious Beliefs ... 29 min Deo Vindice 27
News Court: Family of teen shot across border can't ... 36 min Deo Vindice 5
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 49 min Quirky 324,149
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 49 min Blitzking 160,753
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 53 min HILLARY 2016 179,017
News Majority Oppose 'Religious Freedom' Laws That C... 2 hr californio 36
More from around the web