Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61397 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.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35001 Mar 12, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
Tony C: Does that benefit society?
ALAN: This is not about what benefits society. This is about extending as much freedom to as many people as possible. There is no such thing as "society" there are only individuals and each one of us have different believes about what is right and wrong. The pew warming KKKristians often argue against gay marriage asking how it benefits "society" while all that is important is it benefits you and yours.
Tony C: Or is the notion of stable households benefiting society outdated, and it's time to just note things for the purposes of legal transition of property?
ALAN: We are each individuals, our lives do not have to benefit anyone other than ourselves. We are not part of a herd but self-owning individuals who have an obligation to ourselves and not to some invented "society." You exist to make yourself happy, you do not exist to make me happy.
Tony C: I have not studied polygamy, I don't know. I probably won't take the time to study it properly unless and until there is either a vote before me or a personal connection.
ALAN: I hope you will vote to extend freedom to more individuals even if you do not agree with their lifestyle.
Tony C: Now here's where I think I break with Sheeple,
ALAN: Be careful, last time I disagreed with Sheepie he started calling me names and insulting me and has not let up for over 6 months. This is why I no longer read anything he posts, it is just all pure negativity and life is difficult enough with out Sheepie making it worse.
Tony C:- if there is a higher instance of issues within polygamist marriages as he suggests (I have not fact-checked)- then how do you hold it against those polygamist marriages which are successful?
ALAN: Exactly!
Obviously I have no problem extending marriage benefits to those who are different from me.

Re: societal benefit: isn't that the origin of all this stuff?(Again, I ask because I'm not certain. I'm not one of these people who claims to know everything for a fact, unless I really know it for a fact.) The government doesn't incentivize things for no reason, it must have some perceived benefit to "society" or "the greater good" or what have you (or a crooked lobby, actually.)

So didn't they either realize or presume that more married people creates a generally more stable society? Mostly for practical reasons, again, when you have people taking care of each other they are less likely to require public assistance, etc. They are more likely to take ownership in their neighborhoods, etc. All those little and even abstract things.

I try not to look at things as just "now" but a big picture perspective going back to their origins. Maybe now your ideas make more sense. Maybe back then they didn't.
1 post removed

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#35003 Mar 12, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's someone, and there are others of similar opinion and orientation, who disagree with redefining marriage. Besides, "gays and lesbians", can already marry, just like everyone else.
<quoted text>
Those folks do exist in the real world, just like you.
So, your point? I have friends of mine who attended our wedding and DON'T want to get married........it's their right to decide that for themselves, but they also are NOT out there denying other's their right to marry the person of their choosing like you are!!!

Yes, Gays and Lesbians can ALREADY marry just like anyone else can in 17 States with more to follow......it's idiots like yourself who keep INSISTING that a Gay man MUST marry a woman or a Lesbian MUST marry a man in order to be considered "MARRIED" in your opinion and that's NOT true!!!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#35004 Mar 12, 2014
You have got to watch this Rose. It is 52 minutes long but the man is a genius.

Walter Williams.

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#35005 Mar 12, 2014
When a man marries he gets a helper, when a woman marries she becomes a helpee.

Marriage imposes a very high cost on women.

Judged:

15

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35006 Mar 12, 2014
Quest wrote:
The word "segregation" has NO place in marriage law. Can your arguments get any farther from the real world? Nowadays, people can marry anyone from any race they choose. And now, people can marry any gender they choose! And YOU want to go back to the days when all this freedom of choice was illegal? Silly Brian. It's not going to happen.
They support sex segregated marriage where previous law has the perfect diversity, integration and affirmative action of one man and one woman marriage.

They stand for segregation, inequality, separatism and disunity, just like the whites in South Africa during apartheid. If you love integration, keep marriage law as is.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#35007 Mar 12, 2014
Walter E. Williams, George Mason University
Abstract

Terminology in racial literature is such that various behaviors are confused with one another making for less than rigorous analysis of racial problems. For some writers prejudice is used in a fashion signifying distaste for a particular race; others use the term suggesting the use of racial stereotypes; yet others use the term as a substitute for discrimination. Similar confusion surrounds the term segregation. Writers frequently refer to school segregation, meaning that few blacks in attendance at a predominantly white school but the same writers would never apply the term to an opera performance with few or no blacks in attendance. This paper seeks to give operational definitions to various terms used in the discussion of race in the hope that it will lead to more rigorous analysis and understanding of the issues and perhaps more effective social policies in the matter of race.

Disciplines

Civil Rights and Discrimination
Date of this Version

August 2003
Recommended Citation

Walter E. Williams, "Discrimination: The Law vs. Morality" (August 4, 2003). bepress Legal Series. bepress Legal Series.Working Paper 11.
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/11

Judged:

13

13

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#35008 Mar 12, 2014
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously I have no problem extending marriage benefits to those who are different from me.
Re: societal benefit: isn't that the origin of all this stuff?(Again, I ask because I'm not certain. I'm not one of these people who claims to know everything for a fact, unless I really know it for a fact.) The government doesn't incentivize things for no reason, it must have some perceived benefit to "society" or "the greater good" or what have you (or a crooked lobby, actually.)
So didn't they either realize or presume that more married people creates a generally more stable society? Mostly for practical reasons, again, when you have people taking care of each other they are less likely to require public assistance, etc. They are more likely to take ownership in their neighborhoods, etc. All those little and even abstract things.
I try not to look at things as just "now" but a big picture perspective going back to their origins. Maybe now your ideas make more sense. Maybe back then they didn't.
If you have 52 minutes I hope you listen to Walter Williams on discrimination as he provides many examples that help us clarify the words we use. This speech is mostly about race however it applies to women and gays as well. I learned a lot from listening to him. Like married men make more money than single men. Who would have thought?



https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#35009 Mar 12, 2014
More from Walter Williams on the legitimate role of government.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#35010 Mar 12, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex sexual behavior is not new, nor those who engage in such. "Gay people" , however are a relatively recent invention.
Only the label is new.

Which of course has nothing to do with the conversation, anymore than labels such as African-American or black or colored or negro are applicable to discussions about racial equality.

It's simply the common lexicon in use at the time; much easier that saying "same sex sexual behavior" or "persons of African decent".

But leave it to you to quibble over terminology.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35011 Mar 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Man up girls. How can you maintain integrity without addressing the vast difference between the functional design of heterosexual intercourse and the abusive violation of anal sex?
<quoted text>
Do you really not see the ignorance and denial in your claim?
Do you really believe other people don't see it?
You aren't fooling anyone. The Emperor has no clothes...
Smirk.
No, you are the one making an illogical assessment based on your bias.

You are holding up childbirth as some kind of issue.

I KNOW this has been explained to you before, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, and you are incapable of refuting it.

Many straight married couples have no children, either by choice, or because they can't. Also, many adopt, use donors, etc.

We do not treat those folks or their marriages any differently.

Gay people have all the same options as those straight people. We can choose not to have kids, we can adopt, we can use donors, etc.

Explain to me why in your mind a straight couple who adopt should have their marriage legally recognized and a gay couple who adopt should not? How is that fair to the child, let alone the parents?

Expalin to me why in your mind a straight couple who choose not to have children should have their marriage legally recognized and a gay couple who choose not to have children should not?

Hint: your answer has to make sense.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35012 Mar 12, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe you probably have a "partmer" and I believe you probably were issues a certificate stating you are legal.
But that really doesn't mean squat in most places certainly not in Kentucky.
Marriage is an institution created by God between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating stable families which is the bedrock of a civilized society.
What you are pretending to do is a complete joke making a mockery out of the institution of marriage.
You can't intelligently respond to the point (So you either learn, and support gay marriage, or remain stupid, and support AIDS.) So you go off on an irrelevant tangent.

What you believe God created has nothing to do with anything. As you know, atheists get married all the time. Are they creating a mockery?

Gay people have stable families, too.

I assure you we are not "pretending" anything.

Had you attended our ceremony, you would never be able to call it a "mockery."

The answer is you have no answer.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35013 Mar 12, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They are understood to be an exception to the rule, but still retain the form of husband AND wife, regardless of modern sexual identity labels. It's still about joining one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Designating a same sex sexual relationship "marriage" changes the rule.
That shouldn't hurt your head too much, even though you're stupid and all.
Next.
There is no functional difference between those exceptions and our exceptions, mimic.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35014 Mar 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Flunkie continues to hijack the conversation.
The point of providing you with that link is to demonstrate that there is extensive research into the harms polygamy brings to a society. One would think Flunkie, since he claims to have a degree in cultural anthropology (sure he does) would be at least aware of them. But he thinks because the trial was in Canada, the expert testimony has no value to the rest of the world.
Point taken. And I am open to the possibility that polygamy is inherently harmful, although I am skeptical. If it is "widespread" but not "inherent" then I have a problem legislating against the good because of the bad. What if a huge distorted number of gay marriages resulted in some problem, and they used that as an excuse to ban gay marriage?

"Probably" IMO is not good enough to deny access.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35015 Mar 12, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
New Hampshire. 13 if you're a girl, 14 if you're a boy (sexist as well).
Whether it's 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17, I oppose ANYONE marrying ANY child under age 18 for ANY reason.
Why do you people defend adults marrying children?
Someone else suggested it isn't adults marrying children, but similarly aged children marrying each other in the case of pregnancy, etc.; and after being treated as an exception via some approval process. Is that the case?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35016 Mar 12, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except it does, specifically in New Hampshire.
In other states they allow an adult to marry a 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 y/o child.
I always have and always will oppose any law which allow anyone to marry any child under age 18 for any reason.
Just say "no" to child brides.
got it, I should have just read down the page further before posting.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#35017 Mar 12, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, there's never been a norm of racial integration in marriage like the male/female sex integration norm. Nor can perfect affirmative action come from race integrated marriage, like the affirmative action of one man and one woman marriage: race is not binary but sex is either male or female.
.<quoted text>Not the way sex segregated marriage is based on inequality, prejudice and sepratism.
Again, stupid, answer or don't bother to reply.
Are all same race marriages segregated marriage is based on inequality, prejudice and separatism?

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The only one's talking about forcing people to marry someone of the same sex is Rose; I've never claimed that. Voluntary segregation is still wrong; for the whites in South Africa, apartheid was voluntary.
Same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage.
So, you're saying it's wrong for an Asian person to marry another Asian person?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#35018 Mar 12, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They support sex segregated marriage where previous law has the perfect diversity, integration and affirmative action of one man and one woman marriage.
They stand for segregation, inequality, separatism and disunity, just like the whites in South Africa during apartheid. If you love integration, keep marriage law as is.
Jesus titty fkn Christ, your argument makes no sense.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#35019 Mar 12, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, an appeal to simple biology, and anthropology. Human societies organized themselves around the male female union. That's it.
Again, appeal to tradition.
Look it up.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#35020 Mar 12, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're dismissing the messenger, because you don't like the message?
No, I dismiss the message because they are liars with an agenda to demonize gay people.
Pietro Armando wrote:
French homosexuals did march in opposition to same sex marriage. They too realized that marriage is a male female union, and that they already had rights in France.
http://c-fam.org/en/issues/human-rights-syste...
c-fam.org ? Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute. Remember "family" is just code for "anti-gay".
Pietro Armando wrote:
Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill.“In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview.“[T]he most serious study done so far ... demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Pietro Armando wrote:
Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists,“The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media ... They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”...
But it is.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#35021 Mar 12, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please define "race".[QUOTE]

Look it up.
Your ignorance isn't my problem.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
No one is forced to marry at all.
Kind of the point, stupid.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Calvin_Coolish 239,536
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min moshx 1,417,037
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min syamsu 204,669
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Dr Guru 222,200
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 11 min Ronald 196
News Obama returning from summer vacation ready for ... 14 min Synque 19
News Democrats seek repeal of ban on federal funding... 15 min barefoot2626 77
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 27 min swampmudd 7,324
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Cheech the Conser... 393,363
More from around the web