Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61385 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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8662 Nov 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They lie about same sex marriage for the same reason Obama said "If you like your health plan, you can keep it and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
They lied because nobody will vote for them if they tell the truth.
Name one lie told in favor of marriage equality?
tangerine jones

Los Angeles, CA

#8663 Nov 5, 2013
If the Bible is just a fairy tale, then gay marriage has its rights and nothing to lose.

If the Bible is true to what it says? Then gay marriage and those who believe a homosexual is born that way with no conviction, has everything to lose...eternally.
Bobra Starqueer

Rockford, MI

#8664 Nov 5, 2013
Oh good, now maybe the gov will pay for my sex change.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8665 Nov 6, 2013
Bobra Starqueer wrote:
Oh good, now maybe the gov will pay for my sex change.
You can use a hatchet and it's free!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8666 Nov 6, 2013
And the anti-gay bigots lost AGAIN!!!!

Welcome Illinois to the equality club.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#8667 Nov 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
And the anti-gay bigots lost AGAIN!!!!
Welcome Illinois to the equality club.
With N.M. and Hawaii coming up right behind....
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8668 Nov 6, 2013
Bobra Starqueer wrote:
Oh good, now maybe the gov will pay for my sex change.
They will if it keeps you fishing around in your pants, and the unwashed masses working and keeping their mouths shut. You bet they will!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#8669 Nov 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I EVER support financial discrimination against the unmarried?
Oh that's right, I DIDN'T.
There should be ZERO tax benefits just because someone CHOOSES to marry or CHOOSES to have kids.
ZERO.
Happy now?
Very!

Next question.... which comes first? Repeal of tax breaks or marriage? I'm not convinced of your dedication, but it's not personal!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8670 Nov 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Very!
Next question.... which comes first? Repeal of tax breaks or marriage? I'm not convinced of your dedication, but it's not personal!
Marriage comes first, since there is no likely hood of repealing any of the tax breaks.

You would need to convince every married voter (or voter likely to marry) to willingly give them up, and reduce themselves to the same benefit levels that gay couples have had to live with for generations.

Not going to happen.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#8671 Nov 6, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage comes first, since there is no likely hood of repealing any of the tax breaks.
You would need to convince every married voter (or voter likely to marry) to willingly give them up, and reduce themselves to the same benefit levels that gay couples have had to live with for generations.
Not going to happen.
The only interest government has in tax breaks is to support natural families. Childless couples were not separated because they were few, and until recently unable to know the condition until after marriage.

Two guys or two women do not need or deserve a tax break. In fact, it is discrimination against singles.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8672 Nov 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't have a plural marriage family because it's illegal in all 50 states.
Oh really? So a man lives with two women, and has fathered children with both. He calls them their, his wives, they, him, their husband. So you're telling me, that's illegal in all fifty states?

It still doesn't support your claim, you're "pro-family", quite the opposite.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8673 Nov 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The only interest government has in tax breaks is to support natural families.
Of course, this is about equal protection of the law.
KiMare wrote:
Childless couples were not separated because they were few,
Oh, good, because same sex couples similarly make up a very small percentage of the population. I would hate to see you make an argument that actually damages your position. Oh wait, you just did.
KiMare wrote:
and until recently unable to know the condition until after marriage.
No dice, KiMare. Either procreation is related to civil marriage or it is not. YOu cannot make it a conditional requirement applicable only to homosexuals, and solely for the purpose of excluding them from equal protection of the law.
KiMare wrote:
Two guys or two women do not need or deserve a tax break. In fact, it is discrimination against singles.
It's not about a tax break, you twit; and, in many cases, there is actually a tax penalty. The fact is that it is about equal protection of the law.

Single people are irrelevant to this argument. Marriage is a choice, and so long as they may choose to marry should they wish, equal protection is satisfied.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8674 Nov 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Next question.... which comes first? Repeal of tax breaks or marriage? I'm not convinced of your dedication, but it's not personal!
Would you ask this question if gay marriage were not the topic? Of course not.

At issue is not taxation. At issue is equal protection of the law. If the law affords a tax benefit to married couples, why should that be any less applicable to gay couples than anyone else.

Turning to an argument of taxation is merely an admission that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8675 Nov 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh really? So a man lives with two women, and has fathered children with both. He calls them their, his wives, they, him, their husband. So you're telling me, that's illegal in all fifty states?
How dumb are you?
A person may live in such a manner and call themselves whatever they like. He could call himself Lady Gaga, but it would still not mean that such a "family" were recognized legally, or had ANY legal rights or protections.

You do understand that, in your hypothetical, that the man and two women are not legally married, right? The man could marry one of the women, but in no state in the union could he marry both.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8676 Nov 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Name one lie told in favor of marriage equality?
Lie #1 has to be, men and women aren't different, that it makes no difference if a child isn't raised by a mother and father.

What's your favorite lie told for the 'greater good' of same sex marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8677 Nov 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How dumb are you?
Apparently not as dumb as you are.

[
A person may live in such a manner and call themselves whatever they like. He could call himself Lady Gaga, but it would still not mean that such a "family" were recognized legally, or had ANY legal rights or protections.
You do understand that, in your hypothetical, that the man and two women are not legally married, right? The man could marry one of the women, but in no state in the union could he marry both.
Helllllooooooo....McFly, of course they're not married, or only one woman is his legal wife. Why shouldn't such a family have legal recognition? So it's acceptable for two men to call themselves "husband and husband", or two women, "wife and wife", but not a man and two women to call themselves, "husband, wife, and wife"? Don't the children deserve married parents, their biological mother and father, like the children "of" same sex couples, who only one of the participants can be the children's biological parent?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8678 Nov 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Lie #1 has to be,
Anything you write.
Brian_G wrote:
men and women aren't different, that it makes no difference if a child isn't raised by a mother and father.
Brian, you are raising an irrelevant argument again. The state has no interest in a child being raised by opposite sex birth parents. The state allows single parents (in fact fully 40% of birth in the US are to out of wedlock parents http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm ), divorce, adoption, single adoption, gay adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc.

Let's put this to bed. If a gay couple were to sign a contract agreeing that they had no intention of raising a child, would you oppose them being able to marry? If you answer yes, you admit that you argument is irrelevant. If you answer no, you undermine your entire argument. So, which is it?
Brian_G wrote:
What's your favorite lie told for the 'greater good' of same sex marriage?
My favorite lie is that there is a valid reason to deny equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry. You tell it every day.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8679 Nov 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Equally treating blacks and whites, as black and white, regardless of self professed opposite race attraction is equal treatment.
Treat equal? Some states used various terms, based on the percentage of "negro blood" a person had, and decide who was "white" based on that. The whole idea was to preserve the "white race" not the "black race". Nice try though.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8680 Nov 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither of which is grounds for legalized discrimination.
Treating woman as a woman, or a man as a man, is not "legalized discrimination".

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8681 Nov 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Helllllooooooo....McFly, of course they're not married, or only one woman is his legal wife.
So, you admit that your hypothetical argument was completely pointless. Well played.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why shouldn't such a family have legal recognition?
Because they seek greater protection of the law. Learn to count.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So it's acceptable for two men to call themselves "husband and husband", or two women, "wife and wife", but not a man and two women to call themselves, "husband, wife, and wife"?
They can call themselves Harold, for all I care, but it doesn't mean that they have the legal protections of marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't the children deserve married parents, their biological mother and father, like the children "of" same sex couples, who only one of the participants can be the children's biological parent?
As far as the state is concerned, no. The state allows divorce, single parenthood, adoption, single adoption, gay adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc. A child is not entitled by law to be raised by two birth parents, or even two married parents for that matter (40% of births in the US are out of wedlock, and the government does not intervene). Your point is utterly without factual foundation.

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Injudgement 237,893
News Group of Parisians launch Obama 2017 French pre... 12 min Christian Fumblem... 3
News Politics speak at numerous volumes on Oscar night 13 min Christian Fumblem... 3
News SE Asia Stocks-Cautious ahead of Trump speech 17 min Christian Fumblem... 1
News Yes, Mass Deportations Are Coming. And We Know ... 17 min HOLLA ISABELLA 263
News Trump wins praise for skipping the nerd prom 21 min Christian Fumblem... 8
News Donald Trump Is Mentally Ill According to Petit... 23 min Truth hurts 294
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 38 min Injudgement 259,176
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Quirky 413,285
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Cheech the Conser... 1,498,604
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 2 hr Copout 21,429
More from around the web