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.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#527 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
So, your claim is that in the settling of North America, where there was no government, people did not get married?

If "Homosexuality wasn't accepted by society out of animus/bigotry/ignorance" , why was it so consistently condemned across societies around the world despite huge differences in religion and morality?

And yes, women were treated as inferior due to the biological hierarchy that the strongest dominate and women are physically weaker. That was fixed as thought became more important than strength, just as gays were allowed to openly exist in society. Still, men and women ARE treated differently (for example in military physical fitness standards) because they are different. Likewise, gay marriages are different from heterosexual marriages.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#528 Mar 30, 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?
Really?

So a man who has had his testicles removed might still be fertile?
So a woman who has had her ovaries removed might still be fertile?

Even in the olden days they knew women past menapause were infertile.

Creating a baby between 2 individuals is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#529 Mar 30, 2013
Here is a gay man that opposes gay marriage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i...

:Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation."

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#530 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.
Then why did the SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage as a right (which gays regularly use in this argument, leaving out the context) clearly equate marriage with procreation?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#531 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yep IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCREATION.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
“Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring.” and “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

And if gay marriage bans fail the justification test, there is no legal reason incestuous marriage that does not produce children can.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#532 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But you just said it has been declared a right numerous times and each of those cases point back to Skinner or Loving (which points to Skinner).

You can't have it both ways.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#533 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You never know. Most doctors would say a 70 year old could not give birth. Yet

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09...

And, as I pointed out, when the laws were established, there was no way to definitively know. Yet we DO definitively know for gays.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#534 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sure you could. However, you would have to make a logical and legal argument as to WHY, which you haven't.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#535 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
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.
.
There's your problem in a nutshell.

That's NOT the core reason the govt provides marriage benefits.

If it WERE the core reason, then there would be no reason to provide those benefits to those who are obviously infertile.

Why should opposite-sex couples who have to ability or even intention of having children get marriage benefits?
Why should opposite-sex couples who choose to adopt get marriage benefits?
Why should opposite-sex couples who have to use a 3rd party to procreate get marriage benefits?

Sorry Charlie, but if you allow ANY of those exceptions to marry, then the same logic applies to allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#536 Mar 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So? If it is just about establishing legal kinship, why would CHOOSING require a different legal level of kinship? Or why would it even make sense?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#537 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
So a man who has had his testicles removed might still be fertile?
So a woman who has had her ovaries removed might still be fertile?
Even in the olden days they knew women past menapause were infertile.
Creating a baby between 2 individuals is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
Please show where I have EVER stated it was a requirement.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#538 Mar 30, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I forgot to add-- why would this kinship be made STRONGER with more benefits, knowing that it can be dissolved?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#539 Mar 30, 2013
How about "protecting marriage" by simply outlawing divorce ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#540 Mar 30, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes.

Unfortunately there have always been people who fight against the interests of their own group-

Blacks who supported segregation & bans on inter-racial marriage.
Indians who sided with whites during the Indian Wars.
Jews who sided with the Nazis.
Japanese Americans who supported internment during WWII.

Etc, etc, etc,......

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#541 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
There's your problem in a nutshell.
That's NOT the core reason the govt provides marriage benefits.
So, why does it?

Clearly it is not to make people "happier, healthier, and more productive" because there are plenty of other ways to do that which are not limited to those who marry AND not only was it not proven that marriage causes those things when the benefits were established, that causal relationship haven't even been proven today.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#542 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your claim is that in the settling of North America, where there was no government, people did not get married?
If "Homosexuality wasn't accepted by society out of animus/bigotry/ignorance" , why was it so consistently condemned across societies around the world despite huge differences in religion and morality?
And yes, women were treated as inferior due to the biological hierarchy that the strongest dominate and women are physically weaker. That was fixed as thought became more important than strength, just as gays were allowed to openly exist in society. Still, men and women ARE treated differently (for example in military physical fitness standards) because they are different. Likewise, gay marriages are different from heterosexual marriages.
Inter-racial marriages are different from same-race marriages. Inter-faith marriages are different from same-faith marriages.
Inter-ethnic marriages are different from same-ethnic marriages.
And yes, to use your terminology, gay marriages are different form heterosexual marriages.

They're all still marriages.

And there is no reason one marriage should be treated any differently by the government than any other marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#543 Mar 30, 2013
Chance wrote:
Here is a gay man that opposes gay marriage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-gay-and-i...
:Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation."
Yes, he's anti-gay.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#544 Mar 30, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
How about "protecting marriage" by simply outlawing divorce ?
Because there are legitimate reasons to end marriage--

The seven "At fault" reasons are

CRUEL AND ABUSIVE TREATMENT

UTTER DESERTION CONTINUED FOR ONE YEAR

SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT IN A PENAL INSTITUTION

GROSS AND CONFIRMED HABITS OF INTOXICATION CAUSED BY VOLUNTARY AND EXCESSIVE USE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, OPIUM OR OTHER DRUGS

GROSS OR WANTON AND CRUEL REFUSAL OR NEGLECT TO PROVIDE SUITABLE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE OTHER SPOUSE

ADULTERY

IMPOTENCY

For those of you who claim marriage isn't based on procreation, the last one sure is interesting, isn't it?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#545 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did the SCOTUS rulings declaring marriage as a right (which gays regularly use in this argument, leaving out the context) clearly equate marriage with procreation?
They didn't.

It's only clear in your mind because that's the context you want it to be in.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#546 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCREATION.
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
“Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring.” and “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
And if gay marriage bans fail the justification test, there is no legal reason incestuous marriage that does not produce children can.
Believe what you want. It's not going to happen.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr Rose_NoHo 19,260
News I Hate to Break This to You, Judge Moore, but G... (Mar '15) 23 hr geezer files 3
News Spokesman: George HW Bush hospitalized with blo... Apr 24 Father and Son 1
News It's Time For Israel To Recognize That Diaspora... Apr 21 yidfellas v USA 1
News Westboro Baptist Church heading to West for fir... (Apr '13) Apr 20 vaginal odor 41
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... (Jun '17) Apr 20 Anonymous 23
News Miss America 2005 marries same-sex partner in A... Apr 19 Wondering 3