Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61363 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#50383 Jun 9, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant to the topic of marriage equality. There is no cause and effect correlation.
Nice try, however.
Seriously Rusty, you seem like a reasonably smart fella...look at the bigger picture here. In order to have "marriage equality", you must first devalue marriage conjugality, which has been occurring long before SSM appeared. If men and women married today at the same rates as in previous generations, divorced less, and birthed more children within wedlock than outside of it,....the support would be little support if any for redefining marriage.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#50384 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
The one constant over time and place, male female. Formally recognized same sex unions, either as "marriage" or in some other way, have been limited in practice in time and place, nor where it did exist, did it sustain itself over time. Besides it's virtually non existent in Western Civilization.
Pietro, have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from equality under the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional?
If not, then you are merely reiterating your bigotry and your bias.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As opposed to marriage conjugality for men and women, pre invention of sexual identity labels. "Marriage equality for gay and lesbian people".... Sounds soooooooo Orwellian newspeak-ish. Why it's like a whole new language. Now when you say "lesbian people" are you including the men, women, and children, who reside on the Greek isle of Lesbos? After all they're lesbians too.
You really are an idiot.
Pietro, is procreation either a prerequisite for, or a requirement of, legal marriage?
Does the state allow infertile couples to legally marry? If not, your assertion is rendered meaningless.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You forget the entertainment value that discussing "marriage equality" ....and waiting for it's next incarnation to emerge and be legally recognized, the lesbian throuple! After that, plural marriage equality of course.
The only entertainment factor is watching you make a fool of yourself while you pontificate at great length to illustrate your own ignorance, and lack of counting prowess.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhhh....huh.......all the same rights and responsibilities as any other married couple? Really, but without one half of the marital relationship, the wife, present. It's a brave new world.
Sorry, kiddo. Marriage is a set of legal protections between two people. For all of your caterwauling, you've been utterly incapable of articulating ANY reason why same sex couples should not have equality under the law to marry.

All you have done is make yourself look like a stupid bigot. Well played.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#50385 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Rusty, you seem like a reasonably smart fella...look at the bigger picture here. In order to have "marriage equality", you must first devalue marriage conjugality, which has been occurring long before SSM appeared. If men and women married today at the same rates as in previous generations, divorced less, and birthed more children within wedlock than outside of it,....the support would be little support if any for redefining marriage.
Seriously, Petey, there is no requirement of procreation to validate a marriage. Further, heterosexual marriage rates are completely irrelevant to marriage equality. Keep pretending that you have an argument, however. It's fun to watch you tap dance.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#50386 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....huh.......all the same rights and responsibilities as any other married couple? Really, but without one half of the marital relationship, the wife, present. It's a brave new world.
.
Our state and federal government disagree. So too do our families, friends, colleagues, and employers.

What really makes you think that you matter in an argument that is a day late and a dollar short?

We have marriage equality. Your mental masturbation and verbal ejaculation mean nothing.

Tap dance, Petey. Tap dance.

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#50387 Jun 9, 2014
Helms-enator wrote:
<quoted text>What do you know joanne--you can't take do-henry--you got cystis and hpv!, Your a backdoor trade off for bunk dope!
You are out of your mind....Who is
Joanne? You need psych help!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#50388 Jun 9, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, Petey, there is no requirement of procreation to validate a marriage.
Seriously, I never said there was....but don't let that stop u from implying that because no procreation requirement exists then that must mean procreation and marriage aren't intrinsically linked.
Further, heterosexual marriage rates are completely irrelevant to marriage equality.
Same sex is completely irrelevant to conjugal marriage....thus the Orwellian newspeak "marriage equality"
Keep pretending that you have an argument, however. It's fun to watch you tap dance.
As it is to watch you play the old playground game, "am too"....."we're just as good as you".

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#50389 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
As it is to watch you play the old playground game, "am too"....."we're just as good as you".
The fact the you and KiMare look down your pompous noses at us is of no consequence. If it were, we wouldn't have marriage equality.

Tap dance, little monkey, tap dance.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#50390 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
The one constant over time and place, male female. Formally recognized same sex unions, either as "marriage" or in some other way, have been limited in practice in time and place, nor where it did exist, did it sustain itself over time. Besides it's virtually non existent in Western Civilization.
Why would you expect same sex marriage to exist in cultures that actively discriminated against, persecuted, punished and/or physically harmed people engaging in same sex behavior, stupid Peter? Just because discrimination against those we now call gay has been endemic in most cultures throughout history is not a constitutionally permissible reason to continue it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As opposed to marriage conjugality for men and women, pre invention of sexual identity labels.
Conjugality exists within same sex marriages too, stupid Peter. That you are ignorant of the English language doesn't negate that fact.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Marriage equality for gay and lesbian people".... Sounds soooooooo Orwellian newspeak-ish.
Why it's like a whole new language.
Only to bigots like you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Now when you say "lesbian people" are you including the men, women, and children, who reside on the Greek isle of Lesbos? After all they're lesbians too.
Actually, they would be referred to as "Lesbians" with a capital "L" since the word is referring to a particular people. Homosexual women are commonly referred to as "lesbians" with a lower case "l". Educated people know this.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You forget the entertainment value that discussing "marriage equality" ....and waiting for it's next incarnation to emerge and be legally recognized, the lesbian throuple! After that, plural marriage equality of course.
A legally recognized lesbian "throuple" would be a plural marriage, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhhh....huh.......all the same rights and responsibilities as any other married couple?
Yes, indeed. You've yet to list a single right or responsibility of marriage that opposite sex couple have that same sex couples don't, stupid Peter, even though you've been asked multiple times to do so. It's pretty obvious to others why you don't, no matter how much you lie to yourself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Really, but without one half of the marital relationship, the wife, present. It's a brave new world.
A marital relationship consisting of two men doesn't require the gender role of "wife".
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nice Rusty....real nice.
Don't be jealous of those with greater English language skills than you.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#50391 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seriously Rusty, you seem like a reasonably smart fella...look at the bigger picture here. In order to have "marriage equality", you must first devalue marriage conjugality, which has been occurring long before SSM appeared.
Actually that's not necessary at all. Did men devalue their right to vote in order to allow women to vote? Did white people devalue their freedom when they fought to abolish black slavery? Did white people devalue equality when they fought along with blacks to end segregation and the the legal doctrine of "separate but equal"? No. But again, you can't see that because you're blinded by your own bigotry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If men and women married today at the same rates as in previous generations, divorced less, and birthed more children within wedlock than outside of it,....the support would be little support if any for redefining marriage.
That's simply a lie you tell yourself to make you feel better about the fact your bigotry is falling out of fashion with the majority. American history demonstrates that civil rights and legal protections are eventually given to those minorities that have previously been the victims of majority sanctioned discrimination. You're simply on the wrong side of history.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#50392 Jun 9, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from equality under the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional?
Lodes, have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by denying some men and women equality under law by not allowing them to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, if they choose to marry, that would render such a denial constitutional?

If not, then you are merely reiterating your bigotry and your bias.
Pietro, is procreation either a prerequisite for, or a requirement of, legal marriage?
No, nor have I said it was. However that doesn't change the fact that courts over the past 150 years have ruled procreation is a function and/or purpose of marriage.
Does the state allow infertile couples to legally marry? If not, your assertion is rendered meaningless.
The state allows a man AND a woman to marry regardless of intent, or ability, to procreate. It's also doesn't require the man and woman to a couple prior to the marriage. As a male member of the human species, you can marry under the same rules as any other man. Equality under law, all men and all women are treated equally.
Sorry, kiddo. Marriage is a set of legal protections between two people.
Granted to a man and a woman who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. You too are entitled to such protections, if you choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
For all of your caterwauling, you've been utterly incapable of articulating ANY reason why same sex couples should not have equality under the law to marry.
Equality is extended to the individual men and women, who comprise the "same sexes couple", treated equally as any other individual man or woman. Can you articulate why some men and some women should not be treated equally under law from other men and women?

The bigotry is in advocating unequal treatment, which you do, for some men, and some women.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#50393 Jun 9, 2014
Spell checker ...should have been "Lides".

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#50394 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seriously, I never said there was....but don't let that stop u from implying that because no procreation requirement exists then that must mean procreation and marriage aren't intrinsically linked.
If marriage and procreation are intrinsically linked, then not only would it be impossible to procreate outside of marriage, society would make it illegal as well. That's certainly not the case in the US. The fact SCOTUS has ruled marriage and procreative decisions separate and distinct fundamental rights also disproves your assertion.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same sex is completely irrelevant to conjugal marriage....thus the Orwellian newspeak "marriage equality"
All marriages, including same sex marriages, result in conjugality, stupid Peter. Your ignorance of the English language doesn't make others' assertions "Orwellian newspeak".
Pietro Armando wrote:
As it is to watch you play the old playground game, "am too"....."we're just as good as you".
Our victories in court are no playground game, stupid Peter.
Bruno

Lomita, CA

#50395 Jun 9, 2014
Being racist or a bigot has nothing to do with being anti gay. Todays loud mouth gay activist never had respect for their parents or grand parents ways of living. The gay movement has lost all concept of the traditional way of life as it was in America. Gays are forcing themselves into the main streem of the all American good old ways of a moral society and causing havic among all walks of life.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#50396 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Lodes, have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by denying some men and women equality under law by not allowing them to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, if they choose to marry, that would render such a denial constitutional?
If not, then you are merely reiterating your bigotry and your bias.
On the contrary, Lides correctly asserts the constitutional requirement for restricting the exercise of a fundamental right. You're the one regurgitating not only bigotry and bias but also stupidity since it's painfully obvious you haven't a f-ing clue what the constitution requires.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, nor have I said it was. However that doesn't change the fact that courts over the past 150 years have ruled procreation is a function and/or purpose of marriage.
But none of them made it a basis for justifying the exclusion of people that can't or won't procreate from being able to marry, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state allows a man AND a woman to marry regardless of intent, or ability, to procreate. It's also doesn't require the man and woman to a couple prior to the marriage.
And since gay men and lesbian women are similarly situated as those opposite sex couples that have no intent or ability to procreate together, there's no constitutionally permissible reason to exclude them from marrying.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As a male member of the human species, you can marry under the same rules as any other man.
Except limiting a gay man to marrying only a woman discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and is not constitutionally permissible.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Equality under law, all men and all women are treated equally.
As you've been told numerous times, stupid Peter, equal application of the law is not the same thing as equal protection of the law. All blacks and whites were treated equally under anti-miscegenation laws and yet those laws were unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Granted to a man and a woman who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. You too are entitled to such protections, if you choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Nope. We're no longer limited to marrying as you deem allowable or proper within your bigotry. Thats why we're winning in courts of law and you're losing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Equality is extended to the individual men and women, who comprise the "same sexes couple", treated equally as any other individual man or woman. Can you articulate why some men and some women should not be treated equally under law from other men and women?
Men and women are still treated equally under the law if both have the choice to marry either a man or a woman, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The bigotry is in advocating unequal treatment, which you do, for some men, and some women.
Now who's engaging in Orwellian newspeak? If anyone can freely decide to marry either a man or a woman, has is anyone being treated unequally, stupid Peter? This should be amusing to hear.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#50397 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Brian"? Are you responding to me, or Brian? Oh well.....so u have a blade in place of your RIGHT foot. So you have a LEFT foot, and a RIGHT blade.
<quoted text>
Very well.
<quoted text>
Exactly! Marriage, the union of husband AND wife is marriage, and same sex is just that. Why compare them?
Marriage is marriage whether it involves a man and woman or a woman and woman. You can't compare something to itself.

Sorry I called you Brian.
1 post removed

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#50399 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Granted to a man and a woman who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. You too are entitled to such protections, if you choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Granted to ANY man who wishes to exercise his right to marry either a woman or a man, who is over the age of consent and NOT already married to another adult!!!

Granted to ANY woman who wishes to exercise her right to marry either a woman or man, who is over the age of consent and NOT already married to another adult!!!

My marriage is entitled to the protections provided by both the State and Federal government as required by both the Due Process and Equal Protection Acts and NO husband was required 6 years ago to enter into a legal marriage nor we're we required to pretend one of us was ANYTHING but who we are.....two women who entered into a legally recognized union of wife and wife:-)

Since: Aug 13

Boise, ID

#50400 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Lodes, have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by denying some men and women equality under law by not allowing them to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, if they choose to marry, that would render such a denial constitutional?
If not, then you are merely reiterating your bigotry and your bias.
<quoted text>
No, nor have I said it was. However that doesn't change the fact that courts over the past 150 years have ruled procreation is a function and/or purpose of marriage.
<quoted text>
The state allows a man AND a woman to marry regardless of intent, or ability, to procreate. It's also doesn't require the man and woman to a couple prior to the marriage. As a male member of the human species, you can marry under the same rules as any other man. Equality under law, all men and all women are treated equally.
<quoted text>
Granted to a man and a woman who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. You too are entitled to such protections, if you choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
Equality is extended to the individual men and women, who comprise the "same sexes couple", treated equally as any other individual man or woman. Can you articulate why some men and some women should not be treated equally under law from other men and women?
The bigotry is in advocating unequal treatment, which you do, for some men, and some women.
Epic Fail

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#50401 Jun 9, 2014
Bruno wrote:
Todays loud mouth gay activist never had respect for their parents or grand parents ways of living.
This statement is simply a fallacy on your part......you have NO idea whether Gay and Lesbian activist respect their parents or grandparents way of life........you just feel the need to make these comments out of spite!!!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#50402 Jun 9, 2014
Bruno wrote:
Being racist or a bigot has nothing to do with being anti gay. Todays loud mouth gay activist never had respect for their parents or grand parents ways of living. The gay movement has lost all concept of the traditional way of life as it was in America. Gays are forcing themselves into the main streem of the all American good old ways of a moral society and causing havic among all walks of life.
Just like when the suffragettes forced themselves into mainstream America?
Just like when minorities forced themselves into mainstream America?
Just like when inter-racial marriage forced it's way into America?
You're a blathering, bloviating, blow-hard, and a crappy troll to boot.
My lake house has a really short pier, off of which you could take a lengthy promenade.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#50403 Jun 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The one constant over time and place, male female.
Not anymore.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Realtime 1,706,001
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 4 min hillbillyBanger 16,617
News Trump once again wants to cut energy assistance... 4 min CodeTalker 37
News White House Supports Better Background Checks A... 5 min Dee Dee Dee 40
News California Senate to weigh discipline for accus... 10 min Cordwainer Trout 1
News Dem Sen Nelson: 'Let's Get These Assault Weapon... 12 min 3 PC WHITE MEAT BAND 190
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 24 min EditorAtLarge 59,652
News Florida teen shooting survivors announce 'March... 43 min Politico Incorrecto 47
News FBI in public fight with Trump over releasing R... 6 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 1,542
News 'The View' co-hosts mock Mike Pence's faith, br... 9 hr Pat Robertson s F... 30
More from around the web