Gay marriage

There are 20 comments on the Mar 28, 2013, Los Angeles Times story 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1938 Apr 13, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
First of all, I was asking a QUESTION. And nothing else. The typical gay activist attitude if no empathy, limitless moral superiority and haughtiness does not answer my questions, so let me elaborate:
Stop while you are ahead. Unless what you are about to say is that the constitution does not guarantee equal protection of the laws to all persons, then your argument is meaningless.

I see it does not indicate the former, ergo it must mean the latter.

The reason for the moral superiority is the backing of the highest law of the land.
VeganTiger

Spokane, WA

#1939 Apr 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop while you are ahead. Unless what you are about to say is that the constitution does not guarantee equal protection of the laws to all persons, then your argument is meaningless.
I see it does not indicate the former, ergo it must mean the latter.
The reason for the moral superiority is the backing of the highest law of the land.
This is diverting from main message. We can certainly debate constitutional minutiae also, something I will be happy to do, but before we narrow the focus down, how about dignifying my real example? Do you not think it happens? Or do you think it is irrelevant? Which one? Gay activist sometimes draw comparisons to the civil rights act with people of color to substantiate their own case, often drawing ire from many who doesn't see ANY parallel. Therefore, why are you guys automatically assuming that anyone questioning your agendas are only out to destroy it? Should we just sit back, shut up and let it all roll the way you guys want? A legislative process does not exist in vacuum. There are ALWAYS reactions to an action, but in this case it also appears, gay activists want to abolish the third law of Newtons.
I am genuine about this issue, but simply being attacked and marginalized for raising questions you guys so not feel is worthy enough. Typical of the militant gay agenda, IMHO.
Finally, couldn't care less WHO does what to whoever is consenting to this. My respect for liberties and equal rights are absolute and I do not accept people resorting to personal attacks as a valid argument any more than I believe children have rights.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1940 Apr 13, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
This is diverting from main message. We can certainly debate constitutional minutiae also, something I will be happy to do, but before we narrow the focus down, how about dignifying my real example? Do you not think it happens? Or do you think it is irrelevant? Which one? Gay activist sometimes draw comparisons to the civil rights act with people of color to substantiate their own case, often drawing ire from many who doesn't see ANY parallel. Therefore, why are you guys automatically assuming that anyone questioning your agendas are only out to destroy it? Should we just sit back, shut up and let it all roll the way you guys want? A legislative process does not exist in vacuum. There are ALWAYS reactions to an action, but in this case it also appears, gay activists want to abolish the third law of Newtons.
I am genuine about this issue, but simply being attacked and marginalized for raising questions you guys so not feel is worthy enough. Typical of the militant gay agenda, IMHO.
Finally, couldn't care less WHO does what to whoever is consenting to this. My respect for liberties and equal rights are absolute and I do not accept people resorting to personal attacks as a valid argument any more than I believe children have rights.
1) Equal protection is not minutiae.
2) Dignifying your example with a response is only to lend it credibility that it does not deserve. It is a separate issue, that is not really even being debated, because the only one's invoking it (disingenuously) are those opposed to gay marriage. There is not legitimate movement to legalize incest, whether same sex or otherwise.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1941 Apr 13, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
This is diverting from main message. We can certainly debate constitutional minutiae also, something I will be happy to do, but before we narrow the focus down, how about dignifying my real example? Do you not think it happens? Or do you think it is irrelevant? Which one? Gay activist sometimes draw comparisons to the civil rights act with people of color to substantiate their own case, often drawing ire from many who doesn't see ANY parallel. Therefore, why are you guys automatically assuming that anyone questioning your agendas are only out to destroy it? Should we just sit back, shut up and let it all roll the way you guys want? A legislative process does not exist in vacuum. There are ALWAYS reactions to an action, but in this case it also appears, gay activists want to abolish the third law of Newtons.
I am genuine about this issue, but simply being attacked and marginalized for raising questions you guys so not feel is worthy enough. Typical of the militant gay agenda, IMHO.
Finally, couldn't care less WHO does what to whoever is consenting to this. My respect for liberties and equal rights are absolute and I do not accept people resorting to personal attacks as a valid argument any more than I believe children have rights.
There is no parallel in your polygamy scenario. that would take a whole rewrite of the marriage laws. SSM only requires taking away the laws specifically put in place to prevent it.

in no state or country that has had SSM ofr a while now, has there been a big push for polygamous marriage, as that old world social construct is dying off.

it is a non-issue.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1942 Apr 13, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no parallel in your polygamy scenario. that would take a whole rewrite of the marriage laws. SSM only requires taking away the laws specifically put in place to prevent it.
in no state or country that has had SSM ofr a while now, has there been a big push for polygamous marriage, as that old world social construct is dying off.
it is a non-issue.
As is so often the case, yet another marriage equality detractor lacks basic counting skills.

3 or more is inherently greater than two.
VeganTiger

Spokane, WA

#1943 Apr 13, 2013
First of all. I am all for equality everywhere along with unrestricted liberties for any consenting adults.

Honestly, ALL this could be fixed by simply taking government out of the marriage institution and inheritance should be up to anyone. Instead of making more laws, just get rid of the ones who exist.
Furthermore, it is not up to others who want to deny something that doesn't matter to them, to limit that so they can bask in the exclusive sunlight. I have NEVER heard a gay activist say civil rights issues in the 60's is a different issue ., so why is then polygamy and ( for example) incest illegal? Again, there ARE people who want the right to marry two people just as much as gays want toasty each other. The numbers matter little was long as it is about equality.

As always, it appears nobody in favor of gay marriage here is willing to acknowledge that what is their rights should not extend to others with similar grievances, yet not precious enough to be worthy of the self-righteousness.
VeganTiger

Spokane, WA

#1944 Apr 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Equal protection is not minutiae.
2) Dignifying your example with a response is only to lend it credibility that it does not deserve. It is a separate issue, that is not really even being debated, because the only one's invoking it (disingenuously) are those opposed to gay marriage. There is not legitimate movement to legalize incest, whether same sex or otherwise.
OK, so you are answering me or simply trying to get away with saying something hoping I won't respond? Which is it??
Finally, and AGAIN, in all sincerity, Please tell me why incest should NOT be decriminalized. Because if it is a matter of numbers (which you state) what is your threshold then? I thought this was about laws and principles from you guts side?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1945 Apr 13, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
First of all. I am all for equality everywhere along with unrestricted liberties for any consenting adults.
Honestly, ALL this could be fixed by simply taking government out of the marriage institution and inheritance should be up to anyone. Instead of making more laws, just get rid of the ones who exist.
Furthermore, it is not up to others who want to deny something that doesn't matter to them, to limit that so they can bask in the exclusive sunlight. I have NEVER heard a gay activist say civil rights issues in the 60's is a different issue ., so why is then polygamy and ( for example) incest illegal? Again, there ARE people who want the right to marry two people just as much as gays want toasty each other. The numbers matter little was long as it is about equality.
As always, it appears nobody in favor of gay marriage here is willing to acknowledge that what is their rights should not extend to others with similar grievances, yet not precious enough to be worthy of the self-righteousness.
that would be fine, but as long as we have those benefits for marriage, SScouples should get tehm also.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1946 Apr 13, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
First of all. I am all for equality everywhere along with unrestricted liberties for any consenting adults.
Yeah, sure.
VeganTiger wrote:
Honestly, ALL this could be fixed by simply taking government out of the marriage institution and inheritance should be up to anyone. Instead of making more laws, just get rid of the ones who exist.
Furthermore, it is not up to others who want to deny something that doesn't matter to them, to limit that so they can bask in the exclusive sunlight. I have NEVER heard a gay activist say civil rights issues in the 60's is a different issue .
Good luck with that.
VeganTiger wrote:
, so why is then polygamy and ( for example) incest illegal? Again, there ARE people who want the right to marry two people just as much as gays want toasty each other. The numbers matter little was long as it is about equality.
Polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people. Placing an unfair, and greater, burden on the state and employers providing spousal benefits. No one with a serious argument against marriage equality would advance this line of argument.
Incest is potentially more questionable, as the reason incestuous marriage is illegal is the increased incidence of birth defect or mental illness. Clearly, that would not be an issue in cases of homosexual incest, but I am not aware of a single case where this issue is being raised apart from hare-brained marriage equality detractors. Which is to say, it isn't legitimately an issue. Were it a legitimate issue, it would be a separate issue. Those invoking it, like yourself, are merely attempting to inflame the debate with irrelevant rhetoric.
VeganTiger wrote:
As always, it appears nobody in favor of gay marriage here is willing to acknowledge that what is their rights should not extend to others with similar grievances, yet not precious enough to be worthy of the self-righteousness.
Of course, that is inherently irrelevant, as those separate issues are just that, separate issues. The slippery slope does not exist, because no one legal argument applies to each scenario, and each CAN be addressed on a case by case basis.

One would have to be pretty dim not to figure that out.

Why is it that marriage equality detractors are regularly making arguments against polygamy, incest, bestiality, person object marriage, etc rather than making an on topic argument addressing the topic at hand?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1947 Apr 13, 2013
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so you are answering me or simply trying to get away with saying something hoping I won't respond? Which is it??
Finally, and AGAIN, in all sincerity, Please tell me why incest should NOT be decriminalized. Because if it is a matter of numbers (which you state) what is your threshold then? I thought this was about laws and principles from you guts side?
Because it is a separate and irrelevant issue that there is no legitimate movement to legalize.

Your continual return to it is an illustration that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage, which is the topic at hand.
7 posts removed

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1955 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You have it backwards, same sex marriage is a separate and irrelevant issue.
And yet, you can't articulate a valid argument against it.

Equal protection of the law will come to pass, because the best argument your side can bring is the slippery slope.

The reality remains, it just isn't that slippery.

Feel free to articulate a factually supported argument against equality for same sex couples to marry. Thus far you haven't done so.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1956 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. There is no reason incest should be illegal. After all, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Right? Right.
If two men can marry, why can't they be brothers?
Same reason a brother and sister can't marry.

if you really want to change that law. you should start working on it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1957 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it backwards, same sex marriage is a separate and irrelevant issue.
no, it is quite relevent. in fact, it has made it all teh way to the Supreme Court.

facts are fun!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1958 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
http://www.secularhumanism.org /index.php?section=library &page=kaminer_28_5
Why do those who advance this irrelevant argument invariably lack the ability to count to three?

Polygamy, by definition, seeks inherently greater protection of the law for three or more people.

One invariably looks foolish by even advancing this argument, because it is inherently not a question of equality.
4 posts removed

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1963 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
But to a polyamorist wishing to marry, same sex marriage is relevant only in that it is one more step toward marriage equality.
Your relevant is my irrelevant. Facts sting.
hey, if you can figure out a way to make it equal to other marriages, i have no problem with polygamy.

but you are talking some huge rewrites of law to make that happen...

good luck in your quest.

how many people are naturally attracted to multiple partners?
2 posts removed

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1966 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not many. If polygamy became legal, those bigoted against it would probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.
Are any people naturally attracted to multiple partners? isn't it usually a relgious cult thing? in that case, it has no place in our laws at all.
1 post removed

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1968 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
if you cannot summarize your links, you do not understand them yourself...
1 post removed

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1970 Apr 13, 2013
When the facts come out, the roaches run away...
2 posts removed

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1973 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Sorry it's over your head. Interesting read if you weren't such a dummy. Very pertinent to your post.
i'm not chasing link s thta you obviously do not understand your self. if you cannot tell me what it says, you do not understand it yourself.

how would you know if it is pertinent if you don't even understand it?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1974 Apr 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Sorry it's over your head. Interesting read if you weren't such a dummy. Very pertinent to your post.
did you choose which gender you are sexually attracted to? if so, that would mean you were sexually attracted to both genders, and purposefully chose one.

is this the case with you? what type of guys were you sexually attracted to? the thin blonde guys? i bet you were a chubby chaser, weren't you?

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 Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min Truth is might 309,676
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min Jan 179,143
News Russia providing arms to Ukrainian separatists:... 18 min tC Clm 1,106
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 18 min Guru 187,313
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min replaytime 160,861
News What to expect in Obama's speech Saturday 26 min Deo Vindice 14
News Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audi... 33 min barefoot2626 151
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Lily Boca Raton Fl 1,220,137
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Valerie 324,392
News Biden: 'Guys a you have to step up' to fight vi... 1 hr Ted Haggard s Gos... 99
More from around the web