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 25)

Showing posts 481 - 500 of2,351
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#487
Mar 29, 2013
 
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually...it makes me anti-ssm...regardless of sexuality...try again...
Is that like opposing interracial marriage, regardless of the race?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#488
Mar 29, 2013
 
Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothings broken,so theres nothing to remedy.
And yet they're going to overturn DOMA anyways.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#489
Mar 29, 2013
 
Those of you that say gays will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Umm I think straight people have already done that. Look at the divorce rate, length of some marriages, infidelity etc.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#490
Mar 29, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that like opposing interracial marriage, regardless of the race?
My guess is yes, when GTF makes a response......lol!!!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#491
Mar 29, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
And seeing as it is not a legal requirement to prove one can procreate before getting married, that point is truly irrelevant!!!
There are plenty of heterosexual married couples out in this world who can't have children, yet are not denied the right to marry.......and so, that argument is also irrelevant!!!
So, my wife and I are legally married in the state in which we live in and have for almost 5 years......why is it okay for our federal government to treat our marriage differently than other legal marriages that don't have biological children either?
OK, let's try this from a different direction.

Would you please explain why the US gov't began getting involved in heterosexual marriage (a religious ceremony) over 200 years ago and why if began offering benefits to marriage people a hundred years or so ago.

If you can adequately explain that, then I will be able to answer your question in a way you will understand.

An ancillary question is: knowing that the US was/is not a Christian nation and assuming the same proportion of gays have been around throughout time, why was gay marriage not accepted before this. Note that is also has generally not been accepted even in non-Christian nations.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#492
Mar 29, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. Marriage is NOT about sex.
And since you agree it's NOT about sex, then the basis for marriage can't be procreation.
Sex and procreation are two different things. You can have all sorts of sex without procreation.

However, only heterosexuals can procreate.

Here's a question that might help: Do the SCOTUS think marriage is a right?(Here, I'll help: yes) So when the SCOTUS declared it a right, on what did they base that? I know you can figure out the answer since I've posted it multiple times.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#493
Mar 29, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Fail.

Sorry, if marriage is declared a fundamental right for all, you can't deny that right simply based on our inability to afford that right. Something would have to change for ALL marriages to allow for equal protection and due process.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#494
Mar 29, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again, fail. Read the sentence before. It says "right", not "rights". In context, it is crystal clear the justices find the two synonymous. BTW, do YOU think gay marriage is fundamental to the existence or survival of the race?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#495
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let's try this from a different direction.
Would you please explain why the US gov't began getting involved in heterosexual marriage (a religious ceremony) over 200 years ago and why if began offering benefits to marriage people a hundred years or so ago.
If you can adequately explain that, then I will be able to answer your question in a way you will understand.
An ancillary question is: knowing that the US was/is not a Christian nation and assuming the same proportion of gays have been around throughout time, why was gay marriage not accepted before this. Note that is also has generally not been accepted even in non-Christian nations.
Do your own googling. We're not your errand boys.

Face it, you lost the argument, you're flailing, and trying every backup plan.

Legal gay marriage is inevitable. Thank God.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#496
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let's try this from a different direction.
Would you please explain why the US gov't began getting involved in heterosexual marriage (a religious ceremony) over 200 years ago and why if began offering benefits to marriage people a hundred years or so ago.
If you can adequately explain that, then I will be able to answer your question in a way you will understand.
An ancillary question is: knowing that the US was/is not a Christian nation and assuming the same proportion of gays have been around throughout time, why was gay marriage not accepted before this. Note that is also has generally not been accepted even in non-Christian nations.
Sorry, but first and foremost.......I'm legally married to my wife under the laws of the state we live it......that alone means we should have federal recognition and the rights, benefits and privileges that any other legally married couple is afford......PERIOD!!!

As to your heterosexual marriage comment........it truly is IRRELEVANT......because the State decides who is allowed to marry and the State is the one who issues the marriage licenses........now, marriage as we know it today has only been this way roughly the last 500 years and it has gone through many changes. You can read here about marriage and the Western Civilization:
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/ht...

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574...

Here is an essay that was written on the subject following the Romer vs Evans:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

It matters not why benefits were given to married heterosexual couples 200 years ago or even a 100 years ago......what matters is that when Hawaii might grant Same-Sex Couples the right to marry......Congress for no other reason than for moral disapproval against Gays and Lesbians put into place DOMA........and that is NOT a legitimate interest to form laws!!!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#497
Mar 29, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct; marriage rights & benefits apply to married people, including married same-sex couples.
The same thing that's wrong with incest between family members of the opposite-sex- an existing legal kinship relationship.
You keep dodging. Why not just come out and say what is wrong with it?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#498
Mar 29, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Do your own googling. We're not your errand boys.
Face it, you lost the argument, you're flailing, and trying every backup plan.
Legal gay marriage is inevitable. Thank God.
In otherwords, you have no idea why the gov't is involved in marriage so therefore you have no understanding if it should even apply to gays.

Not very smart if you ask me. I already know. But until you think through it yourself, I believe you will just reject the answer if you are told outright.

Trying thinking about it. Come on, you can do that if you try.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#499
Mar 29, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

It matters not why benefits were given to married heterosexual couples 200 years ago or even a 100 years ago......what matters is that when Hawaii might grant Same-Sex Couples the right to marry......Congress for no other reason than for moral disapproval against Gays and Lesbians put into place DOMA........and that is NOT a legitimate interest to form laws!!!
Wow. Really? You think the reason benefits were granted (i.e. society was willing to give up other things to provide those benefits because they thought the investment was worth it) is irrelevant?

Using your logic, I should be given the same pay as members of Congress. Sure, I don't provide the same service but that doesn't matter. We have to treat everyone the same (fairly) right?

See how stupid that sounds? Yet that is what you are endorsing.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#500
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
In otherwords, you have no idea why the gov't is involved in marriage so therefore you have no understanding if it should even apply to gays.
Not very smart if you ask me. I already know. But until you think through it yourself, I believe you will just reject the answer if you are told outright.
Trying thinking about it. Come on, you can do that if you try.
Cop-out. Post it or piss off. I refuse to do your research for you.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#501
Mar 29, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I served 20+ years so I've seen every way imaginable for people to get out of unpleasant duties, but the majority of people don't join the military just for the benefits.
Officers can resign their commission at any time; it doesn't seem to be a problem. The same can apply for enlisted members after their initial service period.
I don't know what military you were in but officers cannot resign at any time. Of my career, I had ADSC that prevented me from resigning at least 16 of my 24 years. Don't forget that they incur an ADSC after each PCS.

Even for the enlisted folks, many reenlistments come with an ADSC.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#502
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Really? You think the reason benefits were granted (i.e. society was willing to give up other things to provide those benefits because they thought the investment was worth it) is irrelevant?
Using your logic, I should be given the same pay as members of Congress. Sure, I don't provide the same service but that doesn't matter. We have to treat everyone the same (fairly) right?
See how stupid that sounds? Yet that is what you are endorsing.
Actually, it's not stupid......because heterosexual couples are allowed to marry even if they can't have children......so, it isn't about what's fair.....it's about what the Constitution says about treating Citizens the same.......and your argument about how you should receive the same pay as Congress is probably just as asinine as me saying I should receive the same pay as an NFL Football player!!!

Sorry, I gave you lots of information and links......and this was the best you could come up with......figures!!!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#503
Mar 29, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Says who? You keep making stuff up with no backing to it.

Here let me try: Marriage is to establish the optimal relationship for creating and raising the next generation of our society:procreation. Since fertility cannot be affirmatively established and a child could result at any time, any pair of man/women can marry.

There how's that. My declaration has the same pedigree yours does.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#504
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Cop-out. Post it or piss off. I refuse to do your research for you.
I'm asking you to THINK. What is a logical reason? If you are unwilling to think, then it is clear you will keep you present stance on the issue--which also requires no thinking.

Even someone with half a brain could reason it out. So you at least have somewhat of a chance...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#505
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Recent legislation is heading that direction. Heck, RI made it so it was legal for siblings to have sex in recent years.

It hasn't been overturned yet because no one has pushed the issue yet. Once marriage is a free-for-all, it will be--simply for the tax advantages if nothing else.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#506
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Recent legislation is heading that direction. Heck, RI made it so it was legal for siblings to have sex in recent years.
It hasn't been overturned yet because no one has pushed the issue yet. Once marriage is a free-for-all, it will be--simply for the tax advantages if nothing else.
I doubt that "tax advantages" have anyting to do with peopel marryinge, because presently 48% of all children are born to unmarried women, and for blacks, it is 75% and has been that high for decades.

If "tax advantages" had anything to do with inducng people to amrry, it woudl have had some effect long ago. Obviously, it doesn't.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 481 - 500 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••