However court rules, gay marriage deb...

However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

There are 2348 comments on the NewsCenter 25 story from Mar 28, 2013, titled However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end. In it, NewsCenter 25 reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsCenter 25.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#874 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take a page from YOUR playbook, sonny boy. GOOGLE IT.
I'm not the one making the claim. When I claim something, I provide the evidence of it.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#875 Mar 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if the "ew" factor is enough to keep father-daughter marriage bans constitutional today, then it's just as likely to keep them intact after same-sex couples can marry nationwide.
Pretty much just destroyed your own claims again.
If the "ew" factor is not enough to prevent gay marriage, then it is not sufficient to prevent father-son marriage.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#876 Mar 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that was merely your INTERPRETATION of the context.
That is that the WORDS said in the ruling.

Is gay marriage necessary to the survival of our race?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#877 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Limited imagination, eh? Doesn't surprise me.... I don't need to work. I have money. Geez.....
Not contributing to society?....ahhahahahaha You don't know anything about me.
Did you ask your daughter about marrying a gay man?
Yep, you have taxpayer money.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#878 Mar 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans, including gay Americans, who pay into insurance, pay fees, and pay taxes.
However, the "cost" for a gay couple being allowed to marry is exactly the same as for any straight couple marrying.
As it stands now, gay people pay more into the system to help subsidize straight married couples, to the detriment of their own spouses and kids.
And that needs to stop.
Yep, and families pay in too. And the cost for a family would also be the same.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#879 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
But first cousins are differently situated than second cousins which are differently situated than relatives far removed.
But yet they can all marry.
That proves your claim of different situation does not apply in marriage.
There is nothing magical about immediate family when it comes to contracts. If there were, you would have presented evidence by now.
still waiting for those costs to society for SSM...

another of the fundamental parts of your argument that has been proven wrong...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#880 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but YOU do don't you?
Yep. I get military retirement, which I EARNED as part of my contract.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#881 Mar 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what it is, and that's why the animus toward gay people is fading so (relatively) quickly.
More and more of us are coming out, and it's very hard to look at your child or grandchild, or sister, or brother, who you have loved dearly, and still think that all gay people are "icky".
I found it interesting in the court transcripts that, I believe it was Roberts, kept harping on the "success of lobbyists" as the cause for the rather drastic change in public opinion.
He was missing the point. The percentage of people who now support same sex couples being allowed to marry mirrors the raise in the increases in the numbers of gay/lesbian Americans who are now out to their families and friends.
It's very hard to hate the people you love.
And that same stigma will fall for marriages within a family.

But that will be irrelevant since the law will not be able to consider the "ew" factor.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#882 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You think gays are sterile?
Nope, but a gay couple has NEVER had a kid. They ALWAYS need a third party in the relationship.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#883 Mar 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Warren didn't mention procreation is the loving v virginao ruling. just that marriage is a basic civil right.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942)"

not only did he refer to Skinner, ONLY procreation is "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Marriage without procreation is not.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#884 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, but a gay couple has NEVER had a kid. They ALWAYS need a third party in the relationship.
Yeah and a lot of straight couples shouldn't have kids.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#885 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942)"
not only did he refer to Skinner, ONLY procreation is "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Marriage without procreation is not.
Skinner was about procreation..loving v virginia was not. it was about marriage.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#886 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, but a gay couple has NEVER had a kid. They ALWAYS need a third party in the relationship.
good thing procreation is IN NO WAY a prerequisite for entering into the basic civil right of marriage...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#887 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, but a gay couple has NEVER had a kid. They ALWAYS need a third party in the relationship.
The same thing is true for a heterosexual couple where one of the parties is sterile or infertile....which means a third party is also needed!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#889 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
But first cousins are differently situated than second cousins which are differently situated than relatives far removed.
But yet they can all marry.
That proves your claim of different situation does not apply in marriage.
There is nothing magical about immediate family when it comes to contracts. If there were, you would have presented evidence by now.
Nope, first & second cousins can be grouped as non-immediate family members, which is why many states allow them to marry. Other states group first cousins with the immediate relatives and so they ban them from marrying, while allowing 2nd cousins & more distant to marry.

It's all about how you can justify the similarities.

Already presented evidence numerous times; immediate family members are banned from the marriage contract because of their kinship relationship.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#890 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
If the "ew" factor is not enough to prevent gay marriage, then it is not sufficient to prevent father-son marriage.
Because that's not the only reason to ban father-son marriages, as I've pointed out numerous times.

That was YOUR argument.

Father-son marriages will be banned just like they are today, not because of the "ew" factor, but because of an existing immediate family kinship relationship which makes then dissimilarly situated from unrelated same-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#891 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
That is that the WORDS said in the ruling.
Is gay marriage necessary to the survival of our race?
No more than opposite-sex marriage is.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#892 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
And that same stigma will fall for marriages within a family.
But that will be irrelevant since the law will not be able to consider the "ew" factor.
The law doesn't consider that now.

Immediate family members are banned from marrying because they're immediate family members with an existing legal kinship.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#893 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, but a gay couple has NEVER had a kid. They ALWAYS need a third party in the relationship.
Irrelevant, since procreation solely between the 2 individuals in a marriage has NEVER been required.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#894 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942)"
not only did he refer to Skinner, ONLY procreation is "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Marriage without procreation is not.
Neither is marriage WITH procreation. Marriage has nothing to do with the survival of our species; only procreation.

2 separate issues.

The court erred in linking them, but in 1942 they probably didn't know any better.

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.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chevy Volt leapfrogs Toyota's Prius (Nov '10) 3 hr Concave 11,791
Best Price MDI for GM Scan Tool Apr 20 Ziluo88 1
Best Quality GM Tech2 GM Scanner Apr 20 Ziluo88 1
News NASCAR crew chief preaches 'perspective' after ... Apr 20 YouPhartse 5
What do you think of the new Lambo SUV? The Urus. Apr 20 dasiener 2
Buying our son a brand-new car Apr 18 tonydavis13 1
Original AUTEL MaxiSYS MS906TS Auto Obd2 Scanne... Apr 16 Ziluo88 1