Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61390 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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5288 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10340/Un...
''George: Marriage is critical to the success of any society because it is the way that mothers and fathers are united to each other in a relationship uniquely apt for the project of child rearing. Now, obviously, law and the state have a profound interest in successful child rearing. Every other social good depends on that.
So, although the state did not invent marriage — marriage, properly understood, is a pre-political institution — the state rightly and necessarily recognizes marriages, distinguishes marital from nonmarital forms of relationships, and supports, regulates and promotes marriage in the hope of sustaining a vibrant marriage culture.
This explains why, historically and across cultures, governments have formally recognized and regulated marriages, even though they have not done that for ordinary friendships, relationships among siblings or purely religious sacraments and ceremonies, such as baptisms and bar mitzvahs.''
You do, of course, realize that the constitution prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion, right?

So, perhaps an article from a Catholic online Magazine isn't the most applicable in a discussion of civil law?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5289 Sep 7, 2013
lides wrote:
I'm in no way selfish. You are the one arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law, which is unconstitutional at best.
Tell me, how does it feel to think such unAmerican thoughts?
Equality has continued to prevail in the courts, because people who hold arguments similar to your own can advance no rational argument against equality. Allowing same sex couples the right to marry doesn't impact you or your rights.
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Re...

'To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.

Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different people and the equality of different relationships. The current marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion.

The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot produce children, nor ensure a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father. These facts alone mean we’re talking about two very different types of relationships. It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarily treat them as if they were the same.

Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’s discriminatory to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all of the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set of relationships over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, it would then be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. The argument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.'

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5290 Sep 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You do, of course, realize that the constitution prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion, right?
So, perhaps an article from a Catholic online Magazine isn't the most applicable in a discussion of civil law?
Poison the well. The source does not matter if the information is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_No...

United States Congress

The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.[27]

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5291 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10340/Un...
''George: Marriage is critical to the success of any society because it is the way that mothers and fathers are united to each other in a relationship uniquely apt for the project of child rearing. Now, obviously, law and the state have a profound interest in successful child rearing. Every other social good depends on that.
So, although the state did not invent marriage — marriage, properly understood, is a pre-political institution — the state rightly and necessarily recognizes marriages, distinguishes marital from nonmarital forms of relationships, and supports, regulates and promotes marriage in the hope of sustaining a vibrant marriage culture.
This explains why, historically and across cultures, governments have formally recognized and regulated marriages, even though they have not done that for ordinary friendships, relationships among siblings or purely religious sacraments and ceremonies, such as baptisms and bar mitzvahs.''
you are too funny1 and too ignorant about the subject you attempt to discuss.
marriage was, in fact, created by the State. it is entirely the purview of the State.
you should at least attempt to know about the subject you are talking about.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5292 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Re...
'To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.
Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different people and the equality of different relationships. The current marriage laws already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarried woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and religion.
The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes. The largest difference is that same-sex couples cannot produce children, nor ensure a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father. These facts alone mean we’re talking about two very different types of relationships. It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarily treat them as if they were the same.
Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’s discriminatory to favor heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all of the benefits flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set of relationships over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, it would then be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. The argument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.'
More idiocy! women and men obviously do not need separate restrooms as there are unisex restrooms across the globe.

you really need to cite better sources that actually have some attachment to the real world. why is it you yourself could not see the glaring error in this post you cited? you must be incredibly stupid, huh?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5293 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you are too funny1 and too ignorant about the subject you attempt to discuss.
marriage was, in fact, created by the State. it is entirely the purview of the State.
you should at least attempt to know about the subject you are talking about.
Prove it. Prove marriage is created by the State. Cite your source.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5294 Sep 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You do, of course, realize that the constitution prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion, right?
So, perhaps an article from a Catholic online Magazine isn't the most applicable in a discussion of civil law?
Robert P. George is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School and professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. He is an expert on marital law and a strong advocate of traditional marriage.
You neglected to mention his credentials but only dismissed as a Catholic magazine.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5295 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>More idiocy! women and men obviously do not need separate restrooms as there are unisex restrooms across the globe.
Not around here. They have family restrooms on account of children, but no unisex unless there is a shortage. There are single bathrooms with locks used by both but not at the same time.
you really need to cite better sources that actually have some attachment to the real world. why is it you yourself could not see the glaring error in this post you cited? you must be incredibly stupid, huh?
Attacking others is the exact equivalent of proclaiming stupidity. Your atheism provides license to be obnoxious and enables your anti social dysfunction. In order to hold down a real job with people one must have people skills. You do not demonstrate you have enough to work part time flipping burgers at the golden arches. Sucks being you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5296 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Not around here. They have family restrooms on account of children, but no unisex unless there is a shortage. There are single bathrooms with locks used by both but not at the same time.
<quoted text> Attacking others is the exact equivalent of proclaiming stupidity. Your atheism provides license to be obnoxious and enables your anti social dysfunction. In order to hold down a real job with people one must have people skills. You do not demonstrate you have enough to work part time flipping burgers at the golden arches. Sucks being you.
ummmm...that would be a unisex bathroom. you really are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

thank you for proving my point for me.

any time you want to show your prejudice again, feel free to exclaim what a horrid human you are!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5297 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Not around here. They have family restrooms on account of children, but no unisex unless there is a shortage. There are single bathrooms with locks used by both but not at the same time.
<quoted text> Attacking others is the exact equivalent of proclaiming stupidity. Your atheism provides license to be obnoxious and enables your anti social dysfunction. In order to hold down a real job with people one must have people skills. You do not demonstrate you have enough to work part time flipping burgers at the golden arches. Sucks being you.
i did not attack you in any way. your own posts proved your stupidity, ignorance and prejudice. i just pointed them out to you.

and then you attack me based on no factual information at all...so i guess we can factually add hypocrite to your list of proven faults as a human...

the more you post, the worse you look. you should take a clue from this information...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5298 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ummmm...that would be a unisex bathroom. you really are incredibly stupid, aren't you?
thank you for proving my point for me.
any time you want to show your prejudice again, feel free to exclaim what a horrid human you are!
You need to look at what was wrote carefully.
'To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things that are fundamentally different.'

Sure there are exceptions to men and women bathrooms but his point still stands unless you favor eliminating men and women bathrooms in favor of unisex bathrooms under the guise of equality. Good luck with that. I don't know what you are whining about, really. His point is obvious.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5299 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Pulling an arcane, and paranoid political word out of your @ss doesn't change the meaning of anything. Try engaging in English, not Klingon!
Try learning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitprop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5300 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Calumny against an entire population?!!
Will you put your dictionary down. He's talking to the forum, not a population!
He's talking about an entire people, in the tradition of Blood Libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Libel

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana

LEARN.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5301 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
And effectively, many of us don't consider this a "Gay" issue. We consider it a Liberal issue. The liberals have no business putting peoples private business on the political stage the way they have.
All I would ask is that you learn to avoid pursuing your behavior in places where you'll get physically abused, and to keep your problems from becoming far worse problems like AIDS problems.
That's what the rest of us do all the time. If you want to live like a normal citizen instead of someone in an institution, that's the bargain.
I guess we're just uppity N's that deserve whatever Massa want to do with us, right?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5302 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't start whimpering when people decide that you're "fighting" back against democracy.
The United States considered Communism illegal. When you decide that democracy "hurts" you, you've fundamentally rejected our form of law. How many people have told you that:
1. You can't cherry pick the laws that you are willing to obey.
2. You can't change the law by illegal means.
Now, here is the choices that you WILL have to make. Are you going to go on inventing "hurt" when you know darn well that it's an imperfect world where people get "hurt" every day? Are you going to choose that path of illegality in an effort to put a minority in charge of a majority?
Everyone has choices. They WILL pay for the choices that they make. Yes. You CHOSE to be gay. EVERY single thing proceeds from there.
The Courts are instituted, in part, to protect the minority from the majority. They are the "just sovereign".

No child chooses their orientation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5303 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently YOU seem to think that it's OK to further marginalize about 43 percent of the law-abiding population in favor of less than 2 percent.
...and don't get me started on that self-important "law-abiding" compost! Suffice it to say that "law-abiding" and "marginalized" tend to be opposites, but some people go out of their way to appear marginalized. I wonder what other behaviors they actively pursue?
3-5%, and that's just the males.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5304 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20...
<quoted text>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/30/98...
<quoted text>
Largely bisexual males infecting females and is reported as heterosexual spread. More accurate would be heterosexual sex with bisexual males. No protection. Seems some get angry because HIV will put a hamper on their multiple partner perverted sex life so they don't care about infecting others. Disgusting.
So let's turn this around and see if your equation still works.

Heterosexual sociopaths and predators exist, so let's deny heteros equal Rights and Protections of the Laws and the Freedom to marry.

Same equation, I just swapped the variables.

Still work?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5305 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't start whimpering when people decide that you're "fighting" back against democracy ...
Who gave you the silly notions that "democracy" means "majority rule", and that this Nation has ever been anything but a democratic Republic?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5306 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Accusations and or reaction is not an argument. Is a logical argument to difficult for you? You cannot defend your position logically? I posted a valid factual information and all you have in return is BS.
Private acts of vice when they become widespread affect important public interests. This includes behaviors which spread diseases which include drug usage and perverted sex. People who engage in this type behavior are enslaved to their sex drive almost like a drug addict needs drugs. Because they are enslaved they have to have it and will lie and put innocents at risk in order to get it.
Talk about unsupported assertions!

Let's do this again.

"Love Addicts Anonymous" (LAA) and "Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous" (SLA) are filled with heteros that fit your description, and the prisons are populated with hetero rapists, hetero predators of all stripes; and hetero addicts fill treatment centers and "Clean and Sober Housing".

This is reason to deny Marriage to hetero couples?
1 post removed

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5308 Sep 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's turn this around and see if your equation still works.
Heterosexual sociopaths and predators exist, so let's deny heteros equal Rights and Protections of the Laws and the Freedom to marry.
Same equation, I just swapped the variables.
Still work?
You assume homosexuals had the right to begin with. They did not. Marriage is regulated. Young females cannot marry, Homosexuals cannot marry in most states. Bigamy is out. Historically marriage is defined as one man and one woman for the purposes of children. Children have a right to healthy biological parents. That is the ideal. Go to a state which legalizes SSM but stay out of mine. Perversion not the equivalent of the norm here.

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
News Mainers set to vote on whether to expand Medicaid 2 min CareBear70 11
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 min Agents of Corruption 14,027
News Ohio Supreme Court justice under fire after biz... 6 min Cordwainer Trout 6
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min VetnorsGate 1,640,445
News Anti-gay married Republican quits after he is c... 9 min Cordwainer Trout 2
News JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect to be named (Feb '17) 29 min PelicanBreefs 32
News Roy Moore's sexual assault allegations cloud Al... 57 min Clinton_ Deplorable 124
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 hr Maria 41,592
More from around the web