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: Mar 07

Location hidden

#587 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Only in the context of procreation. Go read the rulings.
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.”
Is there a compelling reason to not allow a father-son the same legal kinship that others are allowed?
Because they already share legal kinship. They are already a family under the law.

I will never understand this fascination with incest that seems to exist only in the anti-marriage population. It seems like the fall-back argument when all else fails.

Can YOU explain it?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#588 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I can tell you how many senior citizen heterosexual couples can create a baby: 0%
I can tell you how many heterosexual couples are required to be able to create a baby: 0%
Get a real reason.
They don't have one. guess that's why they resort to the incest arguments, as though that wouldn't apply equally to current marriage law. I mean, by their "reasoning", if a man and woman can marry, why can't a man marry his daughter?

Silly stuff.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#589 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
The more ground you lose, the more you sink to the level of your more common moronic anti-gay counterparts. You just do it with better sentence structure.

If you are really concerned about HIV (which I doubt) then the obvious answer is to support same sex marriage.

I will never get HIV because I am married. Case closed.

If you find yourself dismissing that, check your own prejudice. There is no arguing the fact that marriage reduces STD's.

If you aren't supporting SSM, you are encouraging the spread of STD's.

And when this all blows over, and suburban moms tell their gay sons the same way they tell their daughters - to wait for the right person, don't be a slut, one day you'll find the right person and marry him - gradually things change over a generation or two. When things aren't underground or closeted, they become more "regulated" for lack of a better term.

But throwing out the HIV thing is tired, lazy, and lame.

I think you'll have to agree it was handily dismissed in this post.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#590 Mar 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they already share legal kinship. They are already a family under the law.
I will never understand this fascination with incest that seems to exist only in the anti-marriage population. It seems like the fall-back argument when all else fails.
Can YOU explain it?
Sure. Incestuous marriage does not have (and I think, should not) include sex. Instead it would provide a DIFFERENT level of legal kinship that would allow the tax, immigration, etc benefits they don't currently have.

For example, it would allow me to pass my estate and property to someone without facing inheritance tax. Why should that be allowed for some people and not others?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#591 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>

I will never get HIV because I am married. Case closed.
Wow. So you think that married people are immune to HIV?

Please explain A) how a piece of paper from the gov't makes yo immune OR
B) why you need a piece of paper in order to remain faithful to a person you have made a commitment to.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#592 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I can tell you how many senior citizen heterosexual couples can create a baby: 0%
I can tell you how many heterosexual couples are required to be able to create a baby: 0%
Get a real reason.
I already provided evidence that senior citizens CAN naturally conceive and give birth.

When the rules of marriage were established, there was no was to tell for sure who was and was not fertile. So they allowed it for any couple who could possibly conceive.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#593 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the court that matters.
Patience my dear, it's coming.

Even you know that, which is why you're freaking out about this.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#594 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, you do know what a "definition" is, right? By definition, gay marriage DOES NOT EXIST according to the US gov't. You can call it whatever you want, but that is what definition do.
Since you already know the SCOTUS outcome, please post it along with next week's Powerball numbers. Are you going to throw a tantrum if the SCOTUS uphold DOMA?
Nope, still wrong.

Even the federal govt and the anti-gays admitted in court that same-sex couples legally married.

Just that the federal govt doesn't currently RECOGNIZE those marriages.

The SCOTUS isn't going to uphold DOMA nor Prop 8.

Obviously even YOU know that, which is why you're having a hissyfit about it here & now!
Will you throw a hissyfit when both are overturned? O
serfs up

Merritt Island, FL

#595 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
The more ground you lose, the more you sink to the level of your more common moronic anti-gay counterparts. You just do it with better sentence structure.
If you are really concerned about HIV (which I doubt) then the obvious answer is to support same sex marriage.
I will never get HIV because I am married. Case closed.
If you find yourself dismissing that, check your own prejudice. There is no arguing the fact that marriage reduces STD's.
If you aren't supporting SSM, you are encouraging the spread of STD's.
And when this all blows over, and suburban moms tell their gay sons the same way they tell their daughters - to wait for the right person, don't be a slut, one day you'll find the right person and marry him - gradually things change over a generation or two. When things aren't underground or closeted, they become more "regulated" for lack of a better term.
But throwing out the HIV thing is tired, lazy, and lame.
I think you'll have to agree it was handily dismissed in this post.
Reality is you are the exception and not the rule. There is no God according to most of your persuasion. You fornicate with abandon and tried to exterminate yourselves with sexual genocide and have cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars because of it. You are a dead end and people fear telling you the truth due to insane laws that destroy everyone no matter what the cost to our nation. There will be no change over a generation or two. For there will always be economic and financial differences. And there will be macho cultures because of it. You are a product of the new world order elitists and the high amount of politicians in power with hidden lives. And you were wronged in history and when not under control infect the whole population in an imperfect economic environment. When the gay movement started to gain steam the mantra was for personal dignity. You idiots involve yourselves in everyone else's business now. and there are movements to legitimize pedophelia and eventually beastiality. There needs no relationship according to you. Because conservatism in lifestyle does not exist no matter your economic status in high enough numbers. History is unkind. History with you having power ends up with evil results towards all.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#596 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I already provided evidence that senior citizens CAN naturally conceive and give birth.
When the rules of marriage were established, there was no was to tell for sure who was and was not fertile. So they allowed it for any couple who could possibly conceive.
But we know that now and they still let people who cannot possibly conceive marry. there isno way my daughter will ever conceive a child that is hers genetically. never. she still has a legal marriage.

procreation may be what some judges think is ONE reason for marriage being a civil right, but it is in no way a requirement for entering into that social construct. not at all. in no way. zip. nada. nil...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#597 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Incestuous marriage does not have (and I think, should not) include sex. Instead it would provide a DIFFERENT level of legal kinship that would allow the tax, immigration, etc benefits they don't currently have.
For example, it would allow me to pass my estate and property to someone without facing inheritance tax. Why should that be allowed for some people and not others?
Well, if you firmly believe that family members should be able to legally marry other members of their family, take your arguments public, and argue them in court.

I have never met a single straight or gay person who has any desire to marry their parent, sibling, or child.

Anti-marriage folks like yourself seem to be it's only proponents. Can you explain why? And if it so important to you, why not band together and fight for the "right" to marry your parent?

Geesh.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#598 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I have. If marriage is declared right, there is no reason why a father and son cannot get married.
Procreation is not an issue.
The law does not prohibit family member from entering other contracts due to some imagine "undue coercion".
They deserve equal protection and due process.
Affinity does not provide the same level of legal kinship.
And you haven't been able to come up with an argument against it.
And none have you have yet to answer what is wrong with incest between family members of the same sex with an actual answer.
They're not similarily situated to an unrelated couple.

I don't need to come up with an argument agains incest because it's already illegal.

You're going to have to come up with a reason to make them legal, just like we had to come up with a reason to make marriage legal for same-sex couples.

We've done so, which is why we can legally marry in 9 states & 11 countries with more to come.

You obviously haven't done so, which is why you can't marry your sister in any state or country.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#599 Mar 30, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Reality is you are the exception and not the rule. There is no God according to most of your persuasion...
What an odd idea. Can you prove that? How many gay folks have you actually met.

Perhaps you should come to my Church and we can persuade you otherwise.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#600 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a requirement. However it is the basis (as the SCOTUS stated) and the reason benefits are offered.
Nope, can't be; otherwise those who can't or don't or won't procreate wouldn't be able to marry or be eligible for those benefits.

Try again.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#601 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. The lawyer-client relationship is not recognized by the gov't because of procreation. However the gov't recognizes marriages to deal with procreation.
I'll let you answer the other post about establishing kinship before going on.
And neither is marriage.

They BOTH have the potential of procreation under certain circumstances, but neither is based on procreation.

The kinship question has been answered numerous times; I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#602 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
So therefore marriage is not a right. you can't take part of the ruling an throw out the context you don't like.
Nope, marriage IS a right, just not in the context of procreation or the survival of the human species.

I never claimed marriage was a right because of that ruling- that was your claim.
serfs up

Merritt Island, FL

#603 Mar 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
What an odd idea. Can you prove that? How many gay folks have you actually met.
Perhaps you should come to my Church and we can persuade you otherwise.
Your kindness is a minority as you attempted to exterminate yourselves a few decades ago. And would have without the extortion of tax dollars from the general population. No malice here. Just the facts of a minority faction gone wild. And for the record, deserves not to be screwed with.
Brad

Manchester, CT

#604 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
You can only marry someone of the same race.
Same rule applies to everyone.
That's not discrimination?
Where is that the case?
Nowhere in this country,thats where.
I'm not interested in playing hypothetical chicken.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#605 Mar 30, 2013
Chance wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for opposing gay marriage, he isn't. You can call me anti-gay if you want because I find political correctness odious or because I think the gays have bullied some of the churches (the cowardly weak ones) to water down their theology to accommodate gays or because I find the blatant sexual displays and nudity at gay pride parades offensive or because I think pride in general is a sin for which one will suffer a fall. I admit to all those and don't give a rat's behind if you think I am anti-gay because of them. But believing marriage is the union of the man and a woman is not anti-gay.
Yes, it is. If you oppose equal rights for gays & lesbians, then that makes you anti-gay.

Gee, I'm not racist, I just don't support blacks having equal rights.

Oh yeah, we've never heard that one before......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#606 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
Is there a compelling reason to not allow a father-son the same legal kinship that others are allowed?
Yes, because they have an EXISTING legal kinship which would conflict.

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 Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) 6 hr Vivek Golikeri 64
News The Orchard seeks withdrawal from UMC 8 hr South Knox Hombre 15
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 15 hr barry 5,274
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 15 hr Eagle 12 50
News 'Are you prepared to have kids who aren't white?' 16 hr slumdog indians 13
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) Sun Now Is The Time 36,047
News Suffolk bishop says rejection of controversial ... Sun Rainbow Kid 1
More from around the web