Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision

Full story: Fox News

Big change is coming to the lives of the lesbian couple at the center of the fight for same-sex marriage in California no matter how the Supreme Court decides their case.

Comments (Page 49)

Showing posts 961 - 980 of1,557
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
jmac

Goleta, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1044
Apr 26, 2013
 
The following message is to help this discussion continue forward:

To the members of this forum, several measures should be taken in order for reasonable discussion to continue on this topic. Many fallacies of irrelevance have been committed because members are launching personal attacks on each other instead of rationally critiquing each other’s arguments. If someone disagrees with a post, they should think about why they disagree and develop valid counterarguments to prove their point of view. Personally attacking another member will never convince that member to change their mind. Also, when critiquing each other’s arguments it is most helpful to highlight weaknesses or evidence demonstrating that the premises of a member’s arguments are false. Remember that the validity of an argument is totally independent of the person delivering it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1045
Apr 27, 2013
 
jmac wrote:
I've read the last few pages of this forum. I would like to address the posts of Woodtick 57, Norcal Native, and Xavier Breath. All three of you have committed fallacies of irrelevance in your arguments. Among these you three have committed the Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacy. You have attacked “KiMare” and “Get That Fool” multiple times instead of providing a rational critique of the argument.
For example Xavier Breath writes:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid lie.
When you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you have immediately created a discriminatory privilege that will certainly be contested in court.
Smile.
Discriminatory privilege? hahahahahahah yet another meaningless sound bite from our resident crack-pot wacko!
This is ad hominem abusive. You are directly attacking KiMare instead of providing a rational critique of the argument.
Xavier Breath also writes:
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they asking for polygamy to be legal?? Yes they are...
No, they are not. Geez, lady. Don't even bother to fact check... just make up whatever suits your agenda.
Now you are commiting an ad hominem circumstancial fallacy. Even if “Get That Fool” has some kind of ulterior agenda or benefits directly from writing in this forum, that does not discredit his argument. The fact is that you are disagreeing without providing any valid counter argument to show that “Get That Fool’s” arguments are invalid and based on false premises.
I call Xavier Breath "Miss Ad Hominem" for the reasons you describe. He is infamous on Topix for his angry and stupid ad hominem responses.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1046
Apr 27, 2013
 
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello my friend..."MONA" already saw this...he is just playing dum-b......
Hi GTF....still fighting the good fight. Bravo! I don't understand why the SSMers are not, as a whole, or a movement, accepting of polygamy. If monogamous conjugal, as in husband and wife, marriage, is no longer the legal standard, why should it matter who marries who, as long as they're consenting adults?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1047
Apr 27, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, they are separate issues.......why? Because Gays and Lesbians just want to be INCLUDED in an already defined institution called "MARRIAGE"
That "defined institution called 'MARRIAGE' " is defined as a union of husband and wide. If gays and lesbians want to be included in that institution thyr have to enter into it, as many have for centuries, the same way, by accepting a,person of the opposite sex as one's, respective, legally recognized husband or wife.
...polygamist want to change the definition of marriage from 2 to an infinite number of participates..........and again, only fools like yourself hang on to this issue to try and make some point that isn't going to be made and it could have been done before now!!!
Polygamists choose to maintain the nature, opposite sex, of the marital relationship, but not the number. Polygamy has been, and still is, a valid form of marriage throughout time and place.
I'm not worried about folks who want to marry more than one other person......not my business and doesn't have an affect on my marriage......besides, if they can handle more than one other husband or wife......more power to them!!!
If so, no need to oppose it, or any other marriage, between consenting adults.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1048
Apr 27, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That "defined institution called 'MARRIAGE' " is defined as a union of husband and wide. If gays and lesbians want to be included in that institution thyr have to enter into it, as many have for centuries, the same way, by accepting a,person of the opposite sex as one's, respective, legally recognized husband or wife.
Pete, Pete, Pete......with 10 States defining marriage as between 2 consenting adults over the age of 18 and with a possible ruling from SCOTUS in June tossing DOMA, Section 3.......do ya really want to keep bringing up something that is irrelevant like polygamy and marriage being only between a man/a woman?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1049
Apr 27, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Pete, Pete, Pete......with 10 States defining marriage as between 2 consenting adults over the age of 18
How many states are there? I think its fifty? How many have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman?
and with a possible ruling from SCOTUS in June tossing DOMA, Section 3......
Key word here is "possible".
.do ya really want to keep bringing up something that is irrelevant like polygamy
It was brought up before the Supreme Court in the Prop8/DOMA cases.
and marriage being only between a man/a woman?
According to 32 plus states it is.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1050
Apr 27, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How many states are there? I think its fifty? How many have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman?
<quoted text>
Key word here is "possible".
<quoted text>
It was brought up before the Supreme Court in the Prop8/DOMA cases.
<quoted text>
According to 32 plus states it is.
Boy, you are smart.......lol!!!

It also looks like Delaware, Illinois, and Minnesota could have Marriage Equality before the end of the year and California could be back by the end of June.......so, it doesn't matter how many we don't have.......it matters more on what we do have:-)

Remember that there were still a few states that banned interracial marriages before the Loving ruling and it was almost another 40 years before MOST even accepted interracial marriages......so, we will have to take the gains we get every year:-)

And if Congress does in fact get their butts in gear, DOMA Section 2 could be gone as well by the end of the year!!!

It's okay Pete......we know you will still cling to what you believe a marriage should be:-)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1051
Apr 27, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Key word here is "possible".<quote d text>
More PROBABLE than possible......better for ya?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1052
Apr 27, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, you are smart.......lol!!!
Thanks Lo Cal.
It also looks like Delaware, Illinois, and Minnesota could have Marriage Equality before the end of the year and California could be back by the end of June..
Oooooooh "marriage equality" sounds so Orwellian. But is it "marriage equality" for all? Are all marriages included in the "marriage equality" clubhouse? Even polygamists?
.....so, it doesn't matter how many we don't have.......it matters more on what we do have:-)
That's the spirit!
Remember that there were still a few states that banned interracial marriages before the Loving ruling and it was almost another 40 years before MOST even accepted interracial marriages......so, we will have to take the gains we get every year:-)
Hmmmmmmm......how many "races" are there as compared to the number of sexes? Did bans on interracial marriages ban all racial combinations, or just certain ones?
And if Congress does in fact get their butts in gear, DOMA Section 2 could be gone as well by the end of the year!!!
Could be Lo Cal....could be.....
It's okay Pete......we know you will still cling to what you believe a marriage should be:-)
What pray tell is that?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1053
Apr 27, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are all marriages included in the "marriage equality" clubhouse? Even polygamists?
You folks really don't pay attention to the discussion much, do ya? I've told you before.....the polygamy fight is not my fight and it won't affect em or my marriage either way......so, when you keep repeating the same crap over and over again.......it's you that appears to have the issue and besides, polygamist could have started their fight to gain the right to marry more than one person long before Gays and Lesbians started their fight.......the two don't go hand in hand and one really is out to totally redefine Marriage!!!
Quest

Milford, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1054
Apr 28, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You folks really don't pay attention to the discussion much, do ya? I've told you before.....the polygamy fight is not my fight and it won't affect em or my marriage either way......so, when you keep repeating the same crap over and over again.......it's you that appears to have the issue and besides, polygamist could have started their fight to gain the right to marry more than one person long before Gays and Lesbians started their fight.......the two don't go hand in hand and one really is out to totally redefine Marriage!!!
He doesn't HAVE any other argument. Not a single one. So, of course he tries to change the conversation to polygamy. If he can get you to stop debate many people marrying, he's won.
Sad, isn't it?
But's it's all his sort are left with.
The argument is no longer "it's not good for gay folks to marry", but, "If gay folks marry, straight people will start doing all sorts of inappropriate things"!
And that's a losing argument, not to mention insulting to straight folks everywhere.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1055
Apr 28, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't HAVE any other argument. Not a single one. So, of course he tries to change the conversation to polygamy. If he can get you to stop debate many people marrying, he's won.
Sad, isn't it?
But's it's all his sort are left with.
The argument is no longer "it's not good for gay folks to marry", but, "If gay folks marry, straight people will start doing all sorts of inappropriate things"!
And that's a losing argument, not to mention insulting to straight folks everywhere.
The one with NO argument is gays.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective, sterile failure of mating behavior.

Moreover, ss couple will only ever be a duplicated sterile half marriage.

Obviously there is no equating.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1056
Apr 28, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You folks really don't pay attention to the discussion much, do ya? I've told you before.....the polygamy fight is not my fight and it won't affect em or my marriage either way......so, when you keep repeating the same crap over and over again.......it's you that appears to have the issue and besides, polygamist could have started their fight to gain the right to marry more than one person long before Gays and Lesbians started their fight.......the two don't go hand in hand and one really is out to totally redefine Marriage!!!
.......the two don't go hand in hand and one really is out to totally redefine Marriage!!
Exactly! The Rainbow Coalition! This whole issue boils down to how marriage, is legally, and to a lesser extent, culturally, socially, and/or religiously, defined in our country. It's either an exclusinve monogamous conjugal relationship of husband and wife, or its not. The BGLT sandwich crowd wants to break down the wall, the national marriage standard..but apparently only for them and no one else. Once that standard is gone, any consenting adult relationship can be considered "marriage" all in the name of "rights".

Polygamy IS marriage, historically, culturally, religiously, and legally throughout time and place, and its practiced in this country, albeit without government sanction. SSM other than a few scattered historical examples, is a modern western invention.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1057
Apr 28, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't HAVE any other argument. Not a single one. So, of course he tries to change the conversation to polygamy. If he can get you to stop debate many people marrying, he's won.
Sad, isn't it?
But's it's all his sort are left with.
The argument is no longer "it's not good for gay folks to marry", but, "If gay folks marry, straight people will start doing all sorts of inappropriate things"!
And that's a losing argument, not to mention insulting to straight folks everywhere.
Questy my friend, che si deech (dice)?

Quite simple actually. One standard for legal marriage. One man and one woman, of age, freely consented, and not closely related other than first cousins. The rainbow coalition says, "oh no no no...lets drop the man and woman part, and still call it marriage". This of course raises the question, "if we eliminate the nature, male female, why not the number? Or the close relation ban?"

At what point does it become pointless, and there is no need for state involvement?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1058
Apr 28, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's either an exclusinve monogamous conjugal relationship of husband and wife, or its not.
And here Pete goes back to the whole conjugal relationship again........so, Pete keeps repeating himself!!!

Marriage is going to be a relationship between 2 consenting adults over a certain age in this Country and MAYBE, maybe it might involve more than 2 down the road.......but regardless of what my opinion is on the subject......it will not just be between a man and a woman based on your need to procreate or be conjugal!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1059
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of truth and facts:
Study: There is no “gay gene”
New research suggests that homosexuality is passed from parents to opposite-sex offspring through epi-genetics
By Tracy Clark-Flory
Researchers announced today that homosexuality isn’t strictly genetic. But before the homophobes break out their party hats to celebrate this as proof of same-sex attraction being “unnatural,” note that the study in the Quarterly Review of Biology argues that homosexuality is passed from parent to child. The key here is epi-marks, which control how genes are expressed, and they just might explain the evolutionary stumper of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t been eliminated from the gene pool.
As a press release explains in almost comprehensible terms, the study finds “sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus ‘erased,’ can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.” U.S. News translates that:“A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.”
As evolutionary biologist William Rice of the University of California Santa Barbara told U.S. News, these epi-marks have proliferated because they are evolutionarily advantageous: They “protect fathers and mothers from excess or underexposure to testosterone,” but they may also cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. It remains to be seen how this might explain sexuality’s many fluid, complex and category-destroyin g expressions. This is a fascinating theory, but it’s important to note that it’s just that: The study’s findings are based on a biological and mathematical model. The theory still needs to be tested on real-life human beings — so, stay tuned.
Just saying......
Just saying what? That no heterosexual gene has ever been identified? We already know that. And if the epi-genetic theory proves correct, it means sexual orientation has a genetic component and is innate.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1060
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That "defined institution called 'MARRIAGE' " is defined as a union of husband and wide.
It's defined however a society chooses to define it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If gays and lesbians want to be included in that institution thyr have to enter into it, as many have for centuries, the same way, by accepting a,person of the opposite sex as one's, respective, legally recognized husband or wife.
Or they can exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances via either the judicial or legislative process. Which is what they've done. Sorry you don't understand the rights of citizens on the US.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygamists choose to maintain the nature, opposite sex, of the marital relationship, but not the number. Polygamy has been, and still is, a valid form of marriage throughout time and place.
And you speak for all polygamists on what basis? Personal experience? There's no requirement in a polygamous marriage that only opposite sex participants can have sex. Polygamy would seem to be ideally suited for bisexual humans.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If so, no need to oppose it, or any other marriage, between consenting adults.
Failure to advocate for another group petitioning government to address their grievances is not the same as opposing it. There is no constitutional requirement for a minority group to address the grievances of every other minority group along with their own grievance. If polygamists or incest practitioners or whatever other group you wish to toss on the backs of same sex marriage advocates can convince legislators to change laws or jurists to to agree with their constitutional arguments, then so be it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1061
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How many states are there? I think its fifty? How many have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman?
It doesn't really matter; the only real issue is how long it takes to rescind or void them. That can be done with a single SCOTUS ruling or state by state as the bigots opposing gay civil rights die off and become a minority among voters. You're very close to being drowned by a demographic tsunami of younger people who don't understand your bigotry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Key word here is "possible".
No, the only real key is "when", not "if".
Pietro Armando wrote:
It was brought up before the Supreme Court in the Prop8/DOMA cases.
So were cell phones. Do you really think the Prop 8/DOMA cases were about cell phones too?
Pietro Armando wrote:
According to 32 plus states it is.
And how many was it 10 years ago? The key is the trend and it's not going in the direction you want.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1062
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Lo Cal.
Oooooooh "marriage equality" sounds so Orwellian.
Is that what you think of "racial equality" too?
Pietro Armando wrote:
But is it "marriage equality" for all? Are all marriages included in the "marriage equality" clubhouse? Even polygamists?
When gays talk about "marriage equality", it's in the context of their marriages being legally recognized on par with those of straights, not in the context of addressing the marriage grievances of all other minority groups in the US. It's not rocket science for rational adults to understand that. So why can't you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's the spirit!
Hmmmmmmm......how many "races" are there as compared to the number of sexes? Did bans on interracial marriages ban all racial combinations, or just certain ones?
From a constitutional standpoint, it doesn't matter. Infringing a fundamental right like marriage and/or disadvantaging a minority group by law triggers various levels of judicial scrutiny which laws that discriminate must pass in order to be considered constitutional.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1063
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
What don't you all get that the Browns are not the end all of polygamy??? It is a start...it is a beginning...your liberal media rags are pushing for legalized polygamy across the U.S., and they say it's because of ssm that they feel ready to do it..you can't hide from yourselves...YOU are the cause....
No, whiny FOOL, what you don't get is polygamists have been challenging anti-polygmay laws unsuccessfully for almost 150 years. If they suddenly start winning in the court room it might be because previous judges and Justices based their opinions on their religious beliefs and personal prejudice rather than the constitution. Much like how jurists from that era justified "separate but equal" and anti-miscegenation laws even though today they are considered blatantly contrary to the 14th amendment.

Every citizen has the right to petition government to address their grievances. I'm sorry you hate it when your fellow citizens exercise their constitutional rights.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 961 - 980 of1,557
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••