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 26)

Showing posts 501 - 520 of2,351
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#507
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
If I have no insurance, I'd end up in the emergency room for back surgery, I guess, although I've never done the "free emergency room" thing before, however that works. But that would cost a lot more, wouldn't it?
You do realize that you would still be held liable for paying for that visit, right?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#508
Mar 29, 2013
 
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm talking about an inheritance tax--marry a grandson, transfer the estate (or his share), get a divorce. Tada! No inheritance tax. Also a way to transfer property easyily

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#509
Mar 29, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
For one, when the rules went into effect there was no real way to test fertility. Two, even now, fertility determination is not 100% accurate.

On the other hand, I can tell you how many gay couples can create a baby: 0%. And that is known with 100% accuracy.

And the NFL is a private corporation. Gov't benefits are treated differently and subject to more "fairness". If the reason for the benefits doesn't matter in marriage, why should it matter in the example I gave?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#510
Mar 29, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

Sorry, I gave you lots of information and links......and this was the best you could come up with......figures!!!
yes, you gave links. But you didn't answer the question. And no, the gov't did not start providing benefits for marriage to slow the rate of STDs and promiscuity.

Anyone with any self esteem and half a brain does that themselves anyway. BTW, you do realize that AIDS is STILL primarily a gay disease, right?

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections"

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#511
Mar 29, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
For one, when the rules went into effect there was no real way to test fertility. Two, even now, fertility determination is not 100% accurate.
On the other hand, I can tell you how many gay couples can create a baby: 0%. And that is known with 100% accuracy.
And the NFL is a private corporation. Gov't benefits are treated differently and subject to more "fairness". If the reason for the benefits doesn't matter in marriage, why should it matter in the example I gave?
Actually Gays and Lesbians can and do have biological children all the time, some from previous failed heterosexual marriages, some from the help of medical intervention(just like infertile opposite-sex couples do)and others by using a sperm bank or asking a close male friend to donate sperm and then using some means to insert it.......regardless of how Gays and Lesbians conceive.......is not up for discussion, nor is it a reason to deny them the right to marry.

A Lesbian couple can procreate without the use of male sperm........one woman uses her egg and womb, the other woman can have stem cells removed from her bone marrow, which can be changed to sperm and used to fertilize the egg.....thus life can be created........and yes, this is a possibility seeing that research is trying to do this in order to help men who become sterile!!!!

Scientists Make Sperm From Stem Cells, See No ‘Human in a Dish’
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...

It isn't being used but it is something that might be done in the future!!!

Between my wife and I.....we have 4 grown biological children(I have 1, she has 3).......our grown children have married and now have children of their own(we have 4 grandchildren).

We are both in our mid to late 40's and are done having children, yet we still wanted to get married and will be celebrating our 5th wedding anniversary come this August......we are part of the 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples who marriage is still legal, valid and recognized in spite of the passage of Prop 8.

I'm not new to this discussion and everything you think you know of this fight........I probably know just a tad bit better!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#512
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, you gave links. But you didn't answer the question. And no, the gov't did not start providing benefits for marriage to slow the rate of STDs and promiscuity.
Anyone with any self esteem and half a brain does that themselves anyway. BTW, you do realize that AIDS is STILL primarily a gay disease, right?
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections"
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
Nor did I ever state that!!!

I know that HIV/AIDS is a WORLD WIDE EPIDEMIC and it is NOT aimed strictly at just Gay men.......by the way, Lesbians have very low rates of HIV/AIDS......HIV/AIDS has also been around in this Country much longer than the pandemic of the 80's and people like you enjoy trying to keep the attention on HIV/AIDS directly on Gay men instead of realizing that it is affecting heterosexuals at a much more alarming rate world wide.........and anyone who participates in high risk sexual activities and don't use proper precautions are at risk for contracting HIV/AIDS or any other STD.

You are aware that know one truly knows how much of the population is actually Gay and Lesbian, right? Are you also aware that the numbers from the CDC website are not actual numbers, but just estimate and percentages given without knowing the physical numbers or the methodology used are basically meaningless?

Have you ever conducted a survey? Done research for a thesis? If not, maybe you should go do some research and learn a little about the process!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#513
Mar 30, 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.
The govt has always been involved in marriage, even before the US came to be; they just did it through the official state church which married people and controlled the right/benefits which came from marriage.

Since the US doesn't have an established state church they had to create a civil marriage union to grant the rights & benefits of marriage. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between unrelated individuals.

Homosexuality wasn't accepted by society out of animus/bigotry/ignorance/etc, so it's not suprising gay couples weren't allowed to marry.

Women have been roughly half the entire population since the beginning of time, yet they were considered the legal property of their husbands and couldn't vote or own property etc. Why didn't women have the equal rights they do today in most countries?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#514
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It wasn't based on procreation, since procreation isn't required for marriage, and marriage isn't required to procreate.

It doesn't matter how you frame the question, the anwser will always be the same- marriage & procreation are 2 separate rights.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#515
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Marriage has ALREADY been declared a fundamental right for all numerous times.

But like ANY right, it can be restricted if you have sufficient constitutional justification, which is why polygamy and incestuous marriages are banned.

Obviously the battle right now is whether there is a sufficient constitutional justification to ban same-sex couples from exercising their right to marry. It seems to be failing that test.
serfs up

Daytona Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#516
Mar 30, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't based on procreation, since procreation isn't required for marriage, and marriage isn't required to procreate.
It doesn't matter how you frame the question, the anwser will always be the same- marriage & procreation are 2 separate rights.
Its the costs. Always has been. Having kids has been cheapened. It pays not have them. Or get paid for having them. You win. they win everyone wins.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#517
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
It was 1942- not suprising their view of society is a tad dated. They probably had no problem with women being treated as the property of their husbands either. So I consider the source.

NO marriage is fundamental to the existance or survival of the human race, since marriage is NOT required for procreation.

The human race did just fine long before anyone got married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#518
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep dodging. Why not just come out and say what is wrong with it?
I've already said what's wrong with it NUMEROUS times; you're obviously too stupid to understand.

Once more for the stupid people in the room-

THEY HAVE AN EXISTING LEGAL KINSHIP.

It doesn't matter if they have sex or not; incest has always been part of our society. If the only reason we ban a father and daughter from marrying is because of sex/procreation, then there would be no reason to ban them from marrying if one or the other can prove sterility. Do we allow that? Why not??

It's the fact they already have an EXISTING LEGAL KINSHIP.

The point of marriage is to establish a legal kinship WHERE NONE CURRENTLY EXISTS.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#519
Mar 30, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Gays and Lesbians can and do have biological children all the time, some from previous failed heterosexual marriages,
Therefore the person is not homosexual, they are bisexual. Not only that, the gay couple did not have a child, a heterosexual couple did.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
some from the help of medical intervention(just like infertile opposite-sex couples do)and others by using a sperm bank or asking a close male friend to donate sperm and then using some means to insert it
Again, the gay couple did not have the child. It ALWAYS required planning and the intervention of a third person, of the opposite sex.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
.......regardless of how Gays and Lesbians conceive.......is not up for discussion, nor is it a reason to deny them the right to marry.
Except if the core reason for the gov't providing marriage benefits is to entice those who can spontaneously create children to stay in the the relationship to help raise it. If gays to not fit the criteria for WHY they gov't provides benefits (much like consanguineous marriages or plural marriages don't) then they simply don't qualify for them--just as I don't qualify to receive a Congressman's salary.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
A Lesbian couple can procreate without the use of male sperm........one woman uses her egg and womb, the other woman can have stem cells removed from her bone marrow, which can be changed to sperm and used to fertilize the egg.....thus life can be created........and yes, this is a possibility seeing that research is trying to do this in order to help men who become sterile!!!!
Has that been done? EVERYTHING is a possibility in this universe, but until it has happened, it hasn't happened. Not only that, it takes a lot of planning and investment. Not much need for the gov't to incentivize that couple to stay together. The kid was clearly planned and well thought out.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
We are both in our mid to late 40's and are done having children, yet we still wanted to get married and will be celebrating our 5th wedding anniversary come this August...!
A claim to authority does not win a logical argument. I want to grow a full head of hair. Should I expect the gov't to provide the benefits to create that full head of hair, because I WANT it and knowing that most other people have a full head of hair? It will probably make me happier and more productive (since there is a societal bias against bald men)? Of course not. The benefit to society does not rise to the level of them being willing to pay for it.

The same goes for gay marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#520
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Really?

So a 80 y/o couple could have a child at any time?

Most doctors would disagree with you.

Nope, procreation has NEVER been a requirement of marriage. And people who are OBVIOUSLY infertile- postmenapausal women, those who have had ovaries or testicles removed- are still allowed to marry.

So again your proceation argument fails, while my argument of establishing a legal kinship where none currently exists still stands.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#521
Mar 30, 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.
After thinking about it, it probably wasn't fair to ask for the pedigree of your claim. Instead, I should have asked, if marriage was to establish a legal kinship, why didn't they make marriage have the same rights and benefits as affinity? Why such a drastic difference, if that was the intent. To be fair, marriage should have just established the same level of legal kinship as siblings or parent/child if your claim is true.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#522
Mar 30, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor did I ever state that!!!
I know that HIV/AIDS is a WORLD WIDE EPIDEMIC and it is NOT aimed strictly at just Gay men.......by the way, Lesbians have very low rates of HIV/AIDS......HIV/AIDS has also been around in this Country much longer than the pandemic of the 80's and people like you enjoy trying to keep the attention on HIV/AIDS directly on Gay men instead of realizing that it is affecting heterosexuals at a much more alarming rate world wide.........and anyone who participates in high risk sexual activities and don't use proper precautions are at risk for contracting HIV/AIDS or any other STD.
You are aware that know one truly knows how much of the population is actually Gay and Lesbian, right? Are you also aware that the numbers from the CDC website are not actual numbers, but just estimate and percentages given without knowing the physical numbers or the methodology used are basically meaningless?
Have you ever conducted a survey? Done research for a thesis? If not, maybe you should go do some research and learn a little about the process!!!
You did not state it but the link you gave in
http://www.topix.com/forum/toparts/gay-marria...
stated:
"A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers."

And yes, anyone can contract it, but yet the VAST majority of new cases are in gay men despite their low representation in society. And I don't "enjoy trying to keep the attention on HIV/AIDS directly on Gay men", I presented the FACTS (i.e. data) that shows this is the case.

The CDC presents their methodology and it is not hard to track new cases of AIDS in our medical system (physicians have to report it). It is not magical mystery data. It is well-established methods being used AND doesn't take into account the men who don't admit they are gay (so the number is probably skewed on the low side)
Chance

Grove City, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#523
Mar 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If you oppose equal marriage rights for gay same-sex couples, that makes you anti-gay.
Spin it however you want, but you earned the label.
So the gay people out there who oppose gay marriage (yes, they do exist) are anti-gay? They would beg to differ, I'm sure.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#524
Mar 30, 2013
 
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.
Nope, just more scary rhetoric with evidence whatsoever.

I could just as easily claim that if catholics can marry jews then it's only a matter of time before cats will be able to marry dogs.

They just haven't pushed the issue yet........

Yes, that's how ridiculous you sound.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#525
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm talking about an inheritance tax--marry a grandson, transfer the estate (or his share), get a divorce. Tada! No inheritance tax. Also a way to transfer property easyily
Yep, yet another reason incest marriage bans will remain.

Because of the EXISTING LEGAL KINSHIP relationship.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#526
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
After thinking about it, it probably wasn't fair to ask for the pedigree of your claim. Instead, I should have asked, if marriage was to establish a legal kinship, why didn't they make marriage have the same rights and benefits as affinity? Why such a drastic difference, if that was the intent. To be fair, marriage should have just established the same level of legal kinship as siblings or parent/child if your claim is true.
Because it is different than those.

one actually CHOOSES this person to share your life with and to build your lives together.

one does not choose your parents or siblings.

the love i felt for my wife was far dsifferent than the love i feel for my kids or my siblings or anyone else...

it is different and the social construct built aroung that difference reflects that.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 501 - 520 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••