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.

Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1316 Apr 10, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
you mean some people folded under the huge social pressures brought to bear by your agenda?
color me not very shocked...
Yeah, right..... it couldn't POSSIBLY be that they agree with SCIENCE. They "folded." Something you cannot prove. You're just full of charges you can't prove, aren't you? Curious......
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1317 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The Regnerus study has...and it's just the beginning...
No it didn't. It would be interesting to hear what you THINK the Regnerus study proved. I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the actual data.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1318 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Those were elections...not poles...keep up!
Poles???

hahahahahahaahhaahahahhaahhaah
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#1319 Apr 10, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, right..... it couldn't POSSIBLY be that they agree with SCIENCE. They "folded." Something you cannot prove. You're just full of charges you can't prove, aren't you? Curious......
By SCIENCE you merely mean studies with which you agree...

what job did you have at GE science boy?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1320 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Those were elections...not poles...keep up!
But according to you anti-gay religious freak nutjobs, the only polls that matter are at the ballot box.....

Gee, how quickly you change your tune when you start losing those polls!

And again, the overwhelming majority of polling organizations now ask specifically about marriage for same-sex couples, not civil unions.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1321 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You can keep lying to yourself...the rest of us know the truth...
The truth?

This coming from someone who thinks fairytale magical all knowing all powerful sky-god creatures control everything!

And Moses rode a dinosaur to lead the Jews out of Egypt and onto Noah's ark where they all had incest to repopulate the earth!

Gotta love that truth......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1322 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The Regnerus study has...and it's just the beginning...
Nope, that study never looked at kids raised by same-sex parents, and has been thoroughly discredited.

Except for the religious wacko nutjobs who don't understand the scientific method.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1323 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple transitive property....yes, there are many, but one specifically....more to come...
Nope, not a single study.

But keep believing there has been.

I'm sure that'll stop us from getting married and raising our kids.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1324 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But according to you anti-gay religious freak nutjobs, the only polls that matter are at the ballot box.....
Gee, how quickly you change your tune when you start losing those polls!
And again, the overwhelming majority of polling organizations now ask specifically about marriage for same-sex couples, not civil unions.
Nobody 'changed' anything...

'No' they don't...given a straight ssm or nothing...60% say nothing...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#1325 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

I'm sure that'll stop us from getting married and raising our kids.
no one is stopping you from raising your kids, or loving anyone or boinking or even having any kind of ceremony or claiming you are married or the pope...
we just refuse to RECOGNIZE you as the same...
and this is rational since, in reality, you are not the same...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1326 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth?
This coming from someone who thinks fairytale magical all knowing all powerful sky-god creatures control everything!
And Moses rode a dinosaur to lead the Jews out of Egypt and onto Noah's ark where they all had incest to repopulate the earth!
Gotta love that truth......
It does 'not' bother me that you are not willing to believe in the Truth of GOD..that is 'your' free will to do so...but your insults are childish and shows who 'you' really are...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#1327 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not a single study.
are you talking about the number of studies that compares married gays to married straights?

say, isn't that one of your supposed flaws of studies you don't like?

why isn't one you accept as to the studies you do like?

how many studies are on point to this issue?
"not a single study"
you said it...
but you also think "science" supports you...
curious isn't it?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1328 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that study never looked at kids raised by same-sex parents, and has been thoroughly discredited.
Except for the religious wacko nutjobs who don't understand the scientific method.....
Well, scietists and sociologists disagree with you...and I think they understand the scientific method better than either of us...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1329 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<
Children are 'best equipped' to be more emotional stable/successful adults when they are raised in the home with their married biological parents in a low conflict relationship....
That's what we need to focus on and work towards as a nation...
Assuming that were true--and you've provided no evidence to confirm it, including the Regnerus study--how would the children whose same-sex parents are prevented from marrying supposed to acquire a biological family?

See, I pointed this out before. But you ignored it. The children of same-sex parents are no better off because their parents aren't married. Nor is any child who has been adopted by a same sex couple or heterosexual couple or single person worse off than they would have been if they hadn't been adopted at all. That ideal biological family was simply not a possibility for them.

It's kind of like saying that kids are better off with wealthy families than they are with parents on welfare. So we should prevent welfare recipients from marrying.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1330 Apr 10, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that were true--and you've provided no evidence to confirm it, including the Regnerus study--how would the children whose same-sex parents are prevented from marrying supposed to acquire a biological family?
It has always been understood that not 'every child' will have this opportunity...the idea behind the studies is for the government to get behind strengthening the 'traditional, nuclear family', rather than coming up with ideas to keep more and more children away from that situation....
See, I pointed this out before. But you ignored it. The children of same-sex parents are no better off because their parents aren't married. Nor is any child who has been adopted by a same sex couple or heterosexual couple or single person worse off than they would have been if they hadn't been adopted at all.
Would they do better in a nuclear biological home?? More than likely 'yes', but that's not always possible...what we as a country should be aiming for is the best possible situation for our kids...not just 'what will do'....
That ideal biological family was simply not a possibility for them.
It's kind of like saying that kids are better off with wealthy families than they are with parents on welfare. So we should prevent welfare recipients from marrying.
No, you can not tie a 'family' to someone's wealth or status...for one reason and one alone...you can not regulate fertility...this isn't China...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1331 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, scietists and sociologists disagree with you...and I think they understand the scientific method better than either of us...
We understand just fine. And if you read the words of the experts, you would know that you are misrepresenting their research.
Regnerus wrote:
I’d be more careful about the language I used to describe people whose parents had same-sex relationships. I said 'lesbian mothers' and 'gay fathers,' when in fact, I don’t know about their sexual orientation; I do know about their same-sex relationship behavior.
Finding someone whose parent had some sort of same-sex relationship as they were growing up is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I got taken to task for leaning on young adults’ assessments of their parents’ relationships. I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t 'out' in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never 'came out of the closet,' so to speak.
There were two cases where they said the mom and her partner lived together for 18 years. There was another several who lived together for 15 or 13 years. So, stability in the sense of long-term was not common. And frankly, it’s not all that common among heterosexual population. I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad. It is not a study about parenting or parenthood, or parenting practices. I didn’t measure parenting practices.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1332 Apr 10, 2013
How cool is this??????

Why the Court will uphold Proposition 8

Highly probable: The Court will reject the government’s “eight-state solution.”

In its briefing and at oral argument, the federal government argued that the Court should invalidate traditional-marriage laws only in those states that already grant the most marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples through laws authorizing civil unions. It is an understatement to say that the Justices were less than enamored with the government’s argument:

Justice Ginsburg:“So a State that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but ... if ... the State has done nothing at all, then ... it can ... do as it will?”

Justice Breyer:“[S]o a State that does nothing hurts them much more, and yet your brief seems to say it’s more likely to be justified under the Constitution. I’d like to know with some specificity how that could be.”

Keep reading....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1333 Apr 10, 2013
Justice Sotomayor:“[T]here is an irony in that, which is the States that do more have less rights.”
Chief Justice Roberts:“So it’s got to happen right away in those States where same-sex couples have every legal right that married couples do. But you can wait in States where they have fewer legal rights.”

Justice Kennedy (addressing Perry’s counsel):“[The Ninth Circuit] basically said that California, which has been more generous, more open to protecting same-sex couples than almost any State in the Union, just didn’t go far enough, and it’s being penalized for not going far enough. That’s a very odd rationale on which to sustain this opinion.”

Justice Alito (same):“[A]re you seriously arguing that ... if the case before us now were from a State that doesn’t provide any of those benefits to same-sex couples, this case would come out differently?”

Not a single Justice jumped in to defend the federal government’s position. It is difficult to imagine that a majority of Justices will coalesce around the eight-state solution.

Keep reading....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1334 Apr 10, 2013
Highly probable: There are four Justices ready to uphold traditional-marriage laws and four Justices ready to strike them down.

Going into the Hollingsworth argument, the prediction was that Justice Kennedy would be the swing vote. And in this respect, the pre-argument prediction appears to be correct. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor showed significant skepticism for Proposition 8’s proponents.

Justice Breyer:“What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?...
[C]ouples that aren’t gay but can’t have children get married all the time.”

Justice Ginsburg:“[W]e [have] said that somebody who is locked up in prison and who is not going to get out has a right to marry, has a fundamental right to marry, no possibility of procreation.”

Justice Kagan:“[S]o you have sort of a reason for not including same-sex couples [in state-sanctioned marriage]. Is there any reason that you have for excluding them?”

Justice Sotomayor:“[O]utside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them?”
Conversely, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Scalia showed considerable sympathy for the rational-basis theory that Proposition 8’s proponents have advanced.

Cont'd.........

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1335 Apr 10, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody 'changed' anything...
'No' they don't...given a straight ssm or nothing...60% say nothing...
Link to that poll?

And no, we're not just going to take your word for it.

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
Cost - effective Land Rover Jaguar VXDIAG VCX N... 12 hr uobd2 1
Renault diagnostic tool , choose COM Bluetooth ... 18 hr uobd2 1
OBDSTAR X300 PRO3 Key Master Update F108 PSA Pi... Thu My Car repair Park 1
VVDI2 Commander Key Programmer Latest V1.2.5 Up... Thu My Car repair Park 1
Renault-COM Bluetooth Diagnostic and Programmin... Thu My Car repair Park 2
5 cylinder chevy colorado (May '07) Wed hard at it 293
2016 Latest Version X-PROG Box ECU Programmer X... Tue uobd2 1
More from around the web