Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

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.
Comments
7,241 - 7,260 of 52,878 Comments Last updated 40 min ago
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8129
Oct 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Every single legitimate study of default families consistently shows default families significantly affect child-welling being negatively.
I believe that is well being, and default is your definition. There is nothing out of the ordinary about same sex marriage except in your mind.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8130
Oct 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The law is unconstitutional, but you are not REALLY married since ss marriage is an oxymoron.
Everyone knows that moron.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Gee what a shocker!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8131
Oct 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First you deny my point about ss couples demanding children be eliminated, then you turn around and make the same claim. REEEALLY stupid.
Then you bring up an interesting point about polygamy. In fact, the key reason it is outlawed. It is the 'Cinderella Effect' that the story of Issac and Ishmael exhibit in the Bible. Children from one mother are favored at the expense of children from another mother.
If children are not considered, as you demand, then polygamy has no reason to be outlawed.
You were saying idiot.
Snicker.
And yet polygamy IS outlawed, while same-sex couples CAN legally marry.

Milky Way.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8132
Oct 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY reason to limit marriage to two people is the likelihood of children.
When children are removed from consideration as mutually sterile gays demand, the number of participants and the relationship of the participants are irrelevant.
However, at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
That statement is ridiculous no matter how many times you repeat it. Gays aren't mutually sterile, and the fact that they don't have children isn't any different than a straight couple who don't have children. And, since they don't have children how could children be a factor in it at all. If two gays marry and bring children from a previous marriage they have been shown to consistently raise them well and the children have successful lives, in most cases. the only time this isn't true is when people like you make their lives miserable by attacking their families. And, since gays can have children with a surrogate, the whole sterile routine you keep pushing is simply not true.

You should reevaluate your own sanity, it's slipping.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8133
Oct 26, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting polygamists and anti-gays?
Really??
No one quoted was anti happy.
No wonder you fools keep losing in court after court after court.
But still wining on state constitutional amendments.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8134
Oct 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The law is unconstitutional, but you are not REALLY married since ss marriage is an oxymoron.
Everyone knows that moron.
Always with the oxymoron word. Is that the only big word you know, and you think it sounds impressive. All your saying is, in your opinion, same sex marriages aren't valid. Everyone knows that moron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8135
Oct 26, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No one quoted was anti happy.
<quoted text>
But still wining on state constitutional amendments.
I guess you missed Prop 8 being overturned by the SCOTUS.

It's only a matter of time before the remaining 29 constitutional bans are overturned.

But not for polygamy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8136
Oct 26, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, gay people can legally marry one other consenting non-related adult, just like any man or woman can.
At least you're finally getting a clue.
First cousins are related, and they can marry in several states even in gender segregated marriage states. Let's do some fact checking before you answer please.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8137
Oct 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY reason to limit marriage to two people is the likelihood of children.
When children are removed from consideration as mutually sterile gays demand, the number of participants and the relationship of the participants are irrelevant.
However, at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron.
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement is ridiculous no matter how many times you repeat it. Gays aren't mutually sterile, and the fact that they don't have children isn't any different than a straight couple who don't have children. And, since they don't have children how could children be a factor in it at all. If two gays marry and bring children from a previous marriage they have been shown to consistently raise them well and the children have successful lives, in most cases. the only time this isn't true is when people like you make their lives miserable by attacking their families. And, since gays can have children with a surrogate, the whole sterile routine you keep pushing is simply not true.
You should reevaluate your own sanity, it's slipping.
1. So you concede about polygamy. Smart move.

2. No ss couple has ever mutually procreated. NEVER. NOT ONE TIME. Really dumb claim.

3. There is a huge difference between a medical hindrance to procreation and a complete inability to procreate within your orientation. Not to mention the difference between two genders and the duplication of only one.

4. Studies of default heterosexual families (foster, step, adoptive and single) show a significant drop in child well-being. A ss couple with the additional negative of missing a parent gender can only be worse. No discrimination, just common sense.

You said something about re-evaluating sanity?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8138
Oct 26, 2013
 
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
Always with the oxymoron word. Is that the only big word you know, and you think it sounds impressive. All your saying is, in your opinion, same sex marriages aren't valid. Everyone knows that moron.
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.

Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.

It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.

It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.

It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.

It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.

It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.

It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.

All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.

It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8139
Oct 26, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First cousins are related, and they can marry in several states even in gender segregated marriage states. Let's do some fact checking before you answer please.
As you note, the same applies to same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

Couples being the key word.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8140
Oct 26, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.

Guess it's not so absurd after all...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8141
Oct 26, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Guess it's not so absurd after all...
Men can be lesbians too. What a world.....and to think just a few decades ago a "gay man" was a womanizer! My oh my how times change.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8142
Oct 27, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
No, they were sued for violating state public accommodation laws. That you can't understand the difference is why you anti-gays keep losing in court.
They weren't anti-gay, they all served gays before. They are anti-same sex marriage and have a constitutional right not to participate in same sex wedding rituals.

If you don't want to be sued for not attending a same sex wedding, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8143
Oct 27, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.
Real marriage has always been and will always be a committed relationship between one man and one woman. Demanding it ain't so doesn't make it so.
It is the only relationship that reproduces naturally, a father and mother raising their children.
It is the only relationship that is the birthing place of every single other type of relationship.
It is the only relationship that reunites two completely unique parts. A complimentary union, instead of a duplicated half.
It is the only relationship that sexually fit together by design. There is no abusive violation of design.
It is the only relationship that restores a male and female to the very original roots of our creation, pre-gender.
It is the only union that blends two different genders bringing perfect balance. A same gender union lacks diversity and is off balance.
All this says nothing about the cultural, historic and religious distinctions that marriage wholly embraces.
It clearly has, needs and deserves a special and unique definition. It is absurd and sacrilegious to equate ss couples.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Guess it's not so absurd after all...
Gee, nothing changed about reality. Looks like you are not really married, and don't deserve the rights and benefits of marriage...

Man up pussy!
Rosa Winkel

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8144
Oct 27, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, and yet same-sex couples can marry and get all the rights & benefits of marriage.
Guess it's not so absurd after all...
The only thing that's absurd is that thing and it's pathetic attempts to write poetry. LOL

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8145
Oct 27, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They weren't anti-gay, they all served gays before. They are anti-same sex marriage and have a constitutional right not to participate in same sex wedding rituals.
If you don't want to be sued for not attending a same sex wedding, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Except of course they weren't sued for not participating in a same-sex wedding.

They were sued for refusing to provide a service to a same-sex couple which they provide to opposite-sex couples.

That violates state public accommodation laws.

Don't want to get sued, then don't violate public accommodation laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8146
Oct 27, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Men can be lesbians too. What a world.....and to think just a few decades ago a "gay man" was a womanizer! My oh my how times change.
Men can be lesbians?

That's a new one.
1 post removed

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8148
Oct 27, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not an opinion. A fact with numerous facets.
Facts:
Still married here
Friends honor that
Family honors that
Federal government honors that

You love to say that words define reality. The above statements are OUR reality. You, on the other hand, are not part of our reality and so your opinions don't matter.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8149
Oct 27, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>....
If you don't want to be sued for not attending a same sex wedding, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Just like we should have prevented interracial couples form marrying to protect the rights of bigoted business owners who didn't approve?

You never learn, do you?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

41 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 5 min Truth is might 21,616
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min DITCH MITCH 147,009
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Eman 1,083,151
Marco Rubio: Letting Illegals Apply for Jobs Wo... 10 min Crybaby Cons 3
Democrats find living on minimum wage is tough 11 min Joe 48
Hundreds of protests planned this weekend acros... 14 min Crybaby Cons 128
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 14 min Community Disorganizer 45,872
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 39 min Anonymous of Indy 245,716
•••
•••