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
2,301 - 2,320 of 2,351 Comments Last updated May 29, 2013

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2423
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww.... Your type is SO adorable when you have to dance around and pretend you suddenly don't understand what marriage is all about in order to support your baseless prejudices against marriage. SO cute!!
I'm taking this to mean that you really don't have any supportable arguments against marriage equality, but you're either too arrogant or too stupid to just admit it. Am I right?
People also have the option 'not' to marry..

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2424
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about??? They could have married any member of the opposite sex, regardless of 'their' orientation or the orientation of the o/s person they chose to marry...
I was giving you another example of your "equal application of the law" fallacy: anti-miscegenation laws. Applying laws equally doe not mean they also provide equal protection under the law.

But I shouldn't be surprised a constitutional law example went over your head like most other topics do.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2425
May 21, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I was giving you another example of your "equal application of the law" fallacy: anti-miscegenation laws. Applying laws equally doe not mean they also provide equal protection under the law.
But I shouldn't be surprised a constitutional law example went over your head like most other topics do.
There is no right to ssm under the constitution...or didn't they teach you that in constitutional school???

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2426
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no right to ssm under the constitution...or didn't they teach you that in constitutional school???
There is no right to opposite sex marriage or any kind of marriage specifically detailed in the US constitution. Marriage is not an enumerated right but rather an interpreted right by SCOTUS as allowed by the 9th amendment. And SCOTUS did not list any constraints to the fundamental right of marriage regarding the sex of the participants.

As usual, you leave out pertinent facts because you were deemed to stupid to be allowed to attend constitutional school.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2427
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no right to ssm under the constitution...or didn't they teach you that in constitutional school???
There is NO RIGHT to osm under the Constitution either, your point?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2428
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no right to opposite sex marriage or any kind of marriage specifically detailed in the US constitution. Marriage is not an enumerated right but rather an interpreted right by SCOTUS as allowed by the 9th amendment. And SCOTUS did not list any constraints to the fundamental right of marriage regarding the sex of the participants.
As usual, you leave out pertinent facts because you were deemed to stupid to be allowed to attend constitutional school.
But they 'did' note that 'marriage' is essential to our very survival....and of course, we know he wasn't talking about homosexuality...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2429
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
But they 'did' note that 'marriage' is essential to our very survival....and of course, we know he wasn't talking about homosexuality...
They weren't talking about procreation either since being married isn't necessary to procreate, as heterosexuals prove all the time.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2430
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about??? They could have married any member of the opposite sex, regardless of 'their' orientation or the orientation of the o/s person they chose to marry...
Why do you keep pretending you don't understand what marriage is?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2431
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no right to ssm under the constitution...or didn't they teach you that in constitutional school???
There's no right to opposite-sex marriage under the constitution, either. Your point?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2432
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
But they 'did' note that 'marriage' is essential to our very survival....and of course, we know he wasn't talking about homosexuality...
LOL!!!! There you go again!! Pretending you don't understand what marriage is!!!

SO adorable!!

Do you really believe that unmarried people are incapable of reproducing together?? Is there some switch that gets turned on only when a couple if legally married???

I love it. Do you even know what the term marriage means???

LOL!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2434
May 21, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
They weren't talking about procreation either

Of course they were...are you delusional?????
since being married isn't necessary to procreate, as heterosexuals prove all the time.
However that is how you procreate 'responsibly', and we 'need' solid citizens to further our lineage...it's 'essential' to our very survival...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2435
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!! There you go again!! Pretending you don't understand what marriage is!!!
SO adorable!!
Do you really believe that unmarried people are incapable of reproducing together?? Is there some switch that gets turned on only when a couple if legally married???
I love it. Do you even know what the term marriage means???
LOL!!!
LOL!!! There you go running with 1/2 a statement and trying to act like they were talking about ssm...LOL!!! Don't think so!!!

“I beleave in reason not god”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2436
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
Realistically we can get about 20 states. After that it will take a new SCOTUS case to overturn the rest of the bans.
As long as we get the federal rights & benefits, I can wait for the rest of the states to come along.
there are no ban on gay marriage because you cannot ban what never was.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2437
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they were...are you delusional?????
They were talking about the formation of family units on which our society and stability are based. That occurs whether or not married couples decide to have children.
Get That Fool wrote:
However that is how you procreate 'responsibly', and we 'need' solid citizens to further our lineage...it's 'essential' to our very survival...
And yet humans figured our how to procreate long before civil or religious marriage existed or modern societies such as ours existed. Further, not all unmarried people procreate irresponsibly any more than all married people procreate responsibly. SCOTUS itself removed illegitimacy as a legal stigma by ruling that a quasi-suspect class which contributed to its decline as a social stigma as well. While procreation is indeed necessary to ensure the survival of the human species, it's by no means necessary that all humans procreate nor is marriage needed to ensure it occurs.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2438
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
They were talking about the formation of family units on which our society and stability are based. That occurs whether or not married couples decide to have children.
But our 'survival' is not based on married couples 'not' having children, but by responsible procreating...try again...
And yet humans figured our how to procreate long before civil or religious marriage existed or modern societies such as ours existed. Further, not all unmarried people procreate irresponsibly any more than all married people procreate responsibly.
Oh yes, if you have a child and you aren't married...you are depriving that child of all that child is entitled to...and 'that' in itself, is irresponsible...
SCOTUS itself removed illegitimacy as a legal stigma by ruling that a quasi-suspect class which contributed to its decline as a social stigma as well. While procreation is indeed necessary to ensure the survival of the human species, it's by no means necessary that all humans procreate nor is marriage needed to ensure it occurs.
Responsible procreation goes far beyone 'legitimacy'....you know this...why do you fight the truth so???

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2439
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
But our 'survival' is not based on married couples 'not' having children, but by responsible procreating...try again...
No, survival of the human species is dependent upon procreation period. It doesn't matter if the procreation aligns with idea of "responsible" or not. Nor is marriage necessary for procreation.

You try again. And leave your personal opinions and wishes out of it.
Get That Fool wrote:
Oh yes, if you have a child and you aren't married...you are depriving that child of all that child is entitled to...and 'that' in itself, is irresponsible...
Of what specifically is the child deprived if his/her parents are not married? SCOTUS has made it clear parents are the ones who decide how to raise their children; not the government and certainly not you.
Get That Fool wrote:
Responsible procreation goes far beyone 'legitimacy'....you know this...why do you fight the truth so???
Your personal opinion of what constitutes "responsible parenting" has no relevance to civil law. You have no say in how other adults choose to raise their children any more than others had a say in how you raised yours.

“I beleave in reason not god”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2440
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay marriage will never become the norm. if something has been around for 4500 years there must be a reason for it. and in all that time if gay marriage was ever tried it faded quickly. and expect a movement for group marriage. which is already starting in Europe. mark my word in the year 2100 both gay and group marriage will be legal but rare.and most gay union will be inside group unions because the piblic will be more accepting of group union. after a case can be made for group marriage. it even common in in nature.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2441
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

freethinker1957 wrote:
<quoted text>
there are no ban on gay marriage because you cannot ban what never was.
I'm guessing you were high on something when you wrote that. Does what you just posted make sense to you now that you've sobered up?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2442
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LOL!!! Are you reading what you're posting?? Or are you just spewing words and hoping they make sense??
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
But our 'survival' is not based on married couples 'not' having children, but by responsible procreating...try again...
Which has absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with marriage. Do you believe the Duggars and their 19 children are practicing "responsible procreation"??

I know a Roman Catholic couple that have had *SIX* severely handicapped children--all of them needing 24/7 care for life. And yet, they keep having babies because they believe that's what God and the Catholic Church wants them to do. Is that responsible??

How about my friends (a straight, married, perfectly fertile couple) that have chosen *NOT* to reproduce, but to adopt a child in need instead, based, in part, on the many, many, many genetic-based health issues that THEY have and their desire to not pass those issues on to their kids. Responsible??

You've clearly not ever bothered to consider any of these situations, have you? If you had, you might realize that "responsible" and "irresponsible" procreation can happen just as easily with or without marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation.
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, if you have a child and you aren't married...you are depriving that child of all that child is entitled to...and 'that' in itself, is irresponsible...
Which is EXACTLY what you're wishing on all the children of gay folks by wishing to ban their parents from civilly marrying. Why do you wish to harm innocent children like that?
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Responsible procreation goes far beyone 'legitimacy'....you know this...why do you fight the truth so???
Why do you wish to harm innocent children by deciding whether or their parents deserve to be married or not?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2443
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

freethinker1957 wrote:
Gay marriage will never become the norm. if something has been around for 4500 years there must be a reason for it. and in all that time if gay marriage was ever tried it faded quickly. and expect a movement for group marriage. which is already starting in Europe. mark my word in the year 2100 both gay and group marriage will be legal but rare.and most gay union will be inside group unions because the piblic will be more accepting of group union. after a case can be made for group marriage. it even common in in nature.
If it's no big deal, never going to be "the norm", and going to happen anyway, why worry about it? Why advocate that some people be treated unfairly by the government when you know it's a lost cause?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••