However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NewsCenter 25

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Comments (Page 24)

Showing posts 461 - 480 of2,351
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#467
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you have some carnival act conduct a mock ceremony all it ends up being is a mockery.
You still have the same exact rights as everyone else.
the ceremony is exactly the same...as is the marriage certificate...

so how would it be with you if you could marry any man you wish but not a woman..

that would be equal, right?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#468
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Same rules for everyone doesn't equal discrimination.
yes, in fact it did once. as i pointed out. it does now also..

keep trying to back uyp your bigotry and fear with false facts...

try religion...that's a false fact that has the same result!

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#469
Mar 29, 2013
 
I guess the main question here is: is marriage a civil right or a constitutionally protected religious freedom. Those against gay marriage will argue it is the latter. Even though everything about marriage proves its a civil issue. Sure you can get married in a church but you can also get married in a courthouse, on a beach, in a park, hotel, or even a bar. They argue marriage is a religious ceremony, but marriages are ended in court with lawyers. You get a marriage license from the government not the church. And don't forget those final words " by the power vested in me by the state of _______". Last but not least you can get married by a priest but also by a judge, mayor, governor, county clerk. Etc
Brad

Manchester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#470
Mar 29, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the ceremony is exactly the same...as is the marriage certificate...
so how would it be with you if you could marry any man you wish but not a woman..
that would be equal, right?
What if?

If candy and nuts were ifs and buts,,,

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#471
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing wrong with that. You still didn't answer. Why should an existing relationship preclude that contract. It doesn't prohibit any other contracts.
Because the purpose of marriage is to establish legal kinship with specific legal rights where none currently exists. A pre-existing kinship would set up a conflict of legal rights in numerous areas indluding inheritance, custody, parental rights, contractual obligations, etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#472
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
And laws (like those biased against family members marrying) carry even less weight. That's my point.
And yet no law against immediate family members marrying has EVER been overturned by ANY court or legislature ANYWHERE.

Obviously they carry more weight than laws against inter-racial couples marrying or same-sex couples marrying.

But keep up the good fight; maybe you'll be able to marry your sister one day- though I seriously doubt. Oh well, you can still have sex with her, just don't get caught.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#473
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't it be awesome if every straight person in the country said "In addition: we're not here to solve gay marriage. That's their problem." ?
And you need to think about the implications of gov't recognition of plural marriage. We simply cannot afford the benefits. One military member could force the gov't to provide health, housing, per diem, etc for 20-30 people in his her immediate family.
Look, I don't know enough about polygamy to comment with authority. I really don't care to research it at this time. I think the "impending doom" scenario of it happening any time soon is "Chicken Little" nonsense.

And the "implications" IMO are drastically exaggerated, just like they are for gay marriage.

Gay people, just like most adults, mostly have health insurance already. Consolidating those does not make a huge difference. The typical family will go with whichever policy is marginally better, and put both people on it. I am on my husband's policy, and I pay just as much as he does (somewhere between $200-$300 per month.) The reason for that is I am self-employed and single insurance is a total rip-off.

Tangent: When my husband's employer used a different insurance company, I was not eligible for coverage, and I kind of recklessly (I guess) went without health insurance, as I did when I was single. But that's the case going forward, I am subject to the whim of the company he works for and the insurance company they choose. I have to make health decisions like this: I am 41 and have had a bad back since an injury in 2005. According to doctors, I shouldn't be walking right now based on the severity of the disc herniation. However, I'm stubborn, and I rehabilitated myself the more natural way (after an epidural injection) and I live normally, but I have bad days/moments. I refuse to let that get in the way of my life. My doctor suggest waiting to get the surgery until I am in worse shape. But I don't know if I will have health insurance in 5 or 10 years, or next year. And back surgery without health insurance would be pretty devastating financially. So do I do it now even though I don't need it now? Or do I gamble and wait, and risk not being covered? You don't have to worry about that stuff.

So is the government saving money by me being on my husband's policy? I'm paying the premium. If I have no insurance, I'd end up in the emergency room for back surgery, I guess, although I've never done the "free emergency room" thing before, however that works. But that would cost a lot more, wouldn't it?

With polygamy, is the cost significantly different if one husband has 3 dependent wives vs. if 3 husbands have 3 dependent wives?

But again, it sounds like you're making a good argument against polygamy, just like you made a good argument against incest.

Unless the polygamist family approaches the insurance company with "bargaining power" of more clients for them. Who knows? I don't know about this stuff, and it's totally off topic. It is your pure, unsubstantiated conjecture that these things come automatically after gay marriage, even though they haven't in any country or state where gay marriage is legal.

The "what if" time is pretty much over. You don't get to "what if" anymore because we can already see the effects for the most part. I'll give you a few more years, but that's about it.

On to a real reason...do you have one?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#474
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Everyone has the same rights where marriage is concerned,period.
If we had the same rights, the SCOTUS wouldn't be considering 2 cases right now.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#475
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
What a well thought out and coherent point you have made.(eye-rolling)
It was commensurate to the post to which I replied.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#476
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the SCOTUS:
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
“Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring.” and “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
<quoted text>
Wrong. In a legal marriage, neither love or sex is required. Does the gov't verify people are in love before issuing a license? Nope.
Do they check to make sure they have sex? Nope.
There is nothing stopping a man/woman who do not love each other and will never have sex from getting married in the eyes of the gov't.
Is withholding sex grounds for divorce? I think so.(Not certain.)

Procreation is fundamental to the survival of the race, but is not required by every individual. Obviously. Duh.

Either you require it of everyone or no one. Period.

You were the one who said something about love and sex being required. I'm not reading back to see why.

How many people who are not in love and don't have sex get married now? Other than for a green card?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#477
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you have some carnival act conduct a mock ceremony all it ends up being is a mockery.
You still have the same exact rights as everyone else.
That would be true if it were a mock ceremony.

It wasn't.

Game over.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#478
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not a requirement, but the basis. Otherwise, why is it limited to two?(you still haven't answered that one)?
Why is that the only contract family members cannot enter into. Except in some states where cousins can IF they prove they are infertile. Weird to have to prove something that is not the basis of it.
Why has the SCOTUS said time and time again that it is?(Skinner v OK)
When the laws were put into effect there was no why of measuring infertility. Even those who are currently infertile may gain fertility (vasectomies growing back)
Nope, if the infertile are allowed to marry, then procreation can't be the basis for marriage.

Just how is a guy with his nuts blown off in Afghanistan going to gain fertility? Or a woman past menapause?

Nope, procreation is not the basis for marriage. It may have been at one time, but then trading your daughter for a couple of goats was also the basis of marriage at one time.

Things change. Get over it.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#479
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
What if?
If candy and nuts were ifs and buts,,,
OK, you're clearly not smart enough for this discussion.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#480
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. see my posts a couple up. Procreation is the basis, not a requirement.
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
“Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring.” and “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
So Oklahoma ban banning certain people for procreating?

It's two different rights-

1. Marriage

2. Procreation

Neither are dependent on the other.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#481
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a logical fallacy. Are you against crime?
Certain races are statistically far more likely to engage in crime. Does that mean you are against those races?
If you support laws which deny them their rights based on those statistics, then yes, that makes you against those races.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#482
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
But no, the same benefits do not apply. Unless gays magically found a way to spontaneously create a child (and need incentive to remain together to raise that child).
A gay couple has NEVER produced a child.
A sterile opposite-sex couples has NEVER produced a child, yet they are still allowed to marry.

Why?

What benefit could they possibly offer to society??

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#483
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Same rules for everyone doesn't equal discrimination.
Really?

You can only marry someone of the same race.

Same rule applies to everyone.

That's not discrimination?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#484
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Great. As I pointed out, marriage isn't about sex. Next.
Correct. Marriage is NOT about sex.

And since you agree it's NOT about sex, then the basis for marriage can't be procreation.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#485
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't it be awesome if every straight person in the country said "In addition: we're not here to solve gay marriage. That's their problem." ?
And you need to think about the implications of gov't recognition of plural marriage. We simply cannot afford the benefits. One military member could force the gov't to provide health, housing, per diem, etc for 20-30 people in his her immediate family.
Yep, yet another reason polygamy will never be legalized.

But you can keep trying.

Maybe one day you'll be able to marry all 4 of your sisters.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#486
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the SCOTUS:
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
“Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring.” and “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
<quoted text>
Wrong. In a legal marriage, neither love or sex is required. Does the gov't verify people are in love before issuing a license? Nope.
Do they check to make sure they have sex? Nope.
There is nothing stopping a man/woman who do not love each other and will never have sex from getting married in the eyes of the gov't.
Yep, 2 different rights.

1. Marriage
2. Procreation

Neither dependent on the other.

So again, if sex isn't required for marriage, then procreation can't be the basis for marriage.

Thanks for disproving your own claim once again.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 461 - 480 of2,351
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

7 Users are viewing the Autos Forum right now

Search the Autos Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors 11 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,502
Chevy Volt leapfrogs Toyota's Prius (Nov '10) 15 hr Over Priced Cruze 9,204
Craiglist/eBay scam (Mar '12) 16 hr Chenelle 126
Obama won't wait for Congress on immigration Tue Amigo 33
why Nissan Consult 3 always shows not compatible Tue Enzo0527 1
toyota altis Tue Tan 1
Junk My Car, Auto Salvage, Cash for Cars, ... (Jan '12) Mon alley123 9
•••

Buy a New Car


Zipcode:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••