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

#647 Mar 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you demand that every heterosexual married person you know promote incest too, since THEY are allowed to marry unrelated adults?
That's makes as much sense, you know.
But it would make you very unwelcome at parties.
The argument, it it's base, is illogical, and very sad, since it implies that civil rights should be denied to one group, NOT for anything they have done, or will do, but because someone else might someday behave badly.
You can't really think that's rational.
Where have I made any demands of anyone?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#648 Mar 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh it's pretty obvious you ARE worried about it; at least in so far as it promotes your red herring agenda to oppose same-sex couples from marrying. We know you don't actually think it's inevitable, unless you're just a complete moron.
There is no equality issue because incest couples aren't similarily situated to unrelated adults.
I also don't support marriage between people & animals or adults & children or multiple people, because they're not similarily situated to 2 legally competent unrelated adults.
You slipped "multiple people in there. How are multiple, unrelated adult not similarly situated?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#649 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If they are in a monogamous relationship.....then YES, they are pretty much immune from getting HIV/AIDS in today's society because of the precautions taken with regards to blood transfusions and other health related issues....HOWEVER, if one does not take precautions or gets involved with other things like IV drug use and sharing of needles, then it is possible.....but not necessarily probable!!!
Personally, as long as this issue is well within my physical control......I can say that I won't become infected with HIV/AIDS......why? Because I don't step out on my marriage vows, I don't do drugs, I hate needles and unless it is necessary......I don't go to the hospital.......so, truly the only way I might catch it.....would be by getting a tattoo.....and that's hasn't happened either!!!
So why do you need gov't blessing of your relationship in order to remain monogamous?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#650 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
But you've made the case (or maybe it was one of the others) that gays sometimes enter heterosexual marriages. No one has a problem with that. So clearly those against gay marriage are not anti-gay. Just anti-gay marriage.
yet no-one including yourself, has been able to show how SSM would hurt marriage in any way, so how or why could one be anti-SSM without being anti-gay? it think it is an attempt to hide anti-gay feelings behind a veil of defending marriage, which as you have shown, needs no defense.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#651 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
So why do you need gov't blessing of your relationship in order to remain monogamous?
I don't need the governments blessing to remain monogamous.......that's irrelevant.......however, my legal marriage deserves the same EQUAL treatment like any other legal marriage does with regard to federal recognition, rights, benefits and privileges.......funny how heterosexual legal marriages have these things even when the couple steps outside their marital vows......yet make up all sorts of reasons why the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples should be denied that which they demand!!!

Why is that?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#652 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
But you've made the case (or maybe it was one of the others) that gays sometimes enter heterosexual marriages. No one has a problem with that. So clearly those against gay marriage are not anti-gay. Just anti-gay marriage.
That makes no sense. If you are only fine with closeted gay folks who choose to marry unsuspecting straight people in loveless marriages of convenience, but object to a gay person marrying for love, attraction, or any of the reasons so idealized by society, then, yes, you are anti-gay.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#653 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
So why do you need gov't blessing of your relationship in order to remain monogamous?
Why do straight people? Isn't that what the argument this week about "responsible procreation" is all about?
Quest

Manchester, MD

#654 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
You slipped "multiple people in there. How are multiple, unrelated adult not similarly situated?
Because there are more than two. Couples and herds are not similarly situated.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#656 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need the governments blessing to remain monogamous.......that's irrelevant.......however, my legal marriage deserves the same EQUAL treatment like any other legal marriage does with regard to federal recognition, rights, benefits and privileges.......funny how heterosexual legal marriages have these things even when the couple steps outside their marital vows......yet make up all sorts of reasons why the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples should be denied that which they demand!!!
Why is that?
Except it ISN'T a legal marriage in most states nor in the eyes of the federal gov't.

Infidelity is grounds (and commonly used grounds) for ending that marriage and ending the benefits.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#658 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need the governments blessing to remain monogamous.......that's irrelevant.......however, my legal marriage deserves the same EQUAL treatment like any other legal marriage does with regard to federal recognition, rights, benefits and privileges.......funny how heterosexual legal marriages have these things even when the couple steps outside their marital vows......yet make up all sorts of reasons why the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples should be denied that which they demand!!!
Why is that?
Oh and you are the one who claimed marriage would cut down own AIDS in the gay community. As you just pointed out, marriage is not required for monogamy nor is it a guarantee of of it.

So that argument has no merit.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#659 Mar 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes no sense. If you are only fine with closeted gay folks who choose to marry unsuspecting straight people in loveless marriages of convenience, but object to a gay person marrying for love, attraction, or any of the reasons so idealized by society, then, yes, you are anti-gay.
Sure it does. No one would have a problem with an openly gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex. As some on here have pointed out, it happens.

Therefore the "gays getting married" is not an issue and therefore those against gay marriage are against gays marrying gays, not against gays themselves. You want to be gay? Go for it. Just don't ask me to change the rules so we have to incentivize your marriage to another gay.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#660 Mar 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do straight people? Isn't that what the argument this week about "responsible procreation" is all about?
We all don't. Some people (mainly men) DO need the threat of financial loss of half their stuff to keep them around when an "accident" baby is created. Sorry, but that is just human nature.

Gays CANNOT have accident babies. Ever. At all.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#661 Mar 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage.
Great. No one said it was. if you want to jump in the conversation and look intelligent, you need to go back and read some of the conversation.

If not looking intelligent is OK with you, just keep doing what you are doing.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#662 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. No one would have a problem with an openly gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex. As some on here have pointed out, it happens.
Therefore the "gays getting married" is not an issue and therefore those against gay marriage are against gays marrying gays, not against gays themselves. You want to be gay? Go for it. Just don't ask me to change the rules so we have to incentivize your marriage to another gay.
except several religious denominations already have, as well as many governments already have. I think you're obviously on teh losing end of this.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#663 Mar 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there are more than two. Couples and herds are not similarly situated.
I'm still waiting for any of you to come up with a single example of people not being able to enter a contract because they are not similarly situated, much less family members.

Until you can do that, you look silly using the words.

Hint: you have no clue what you are talking about. Lawsuits are not contracts.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#664 Mar 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Oh really? Would you like for your daughter to marry a gay man?
As long as he did not cheat on her and treated her well, I would have no problem with it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#665 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Except it ISN'T a legal marriage in most states nor in the eyes of the federal gov't.
Infidelity is grounds (and commonly used grounds) for ending that marriage and ending the benefits.
Actually, this is EXACTLY what I was referring to......it is a LEGAL MARRIAGE and just because some states and the federal government refuse to recognize it DOESN'T make it any less legal......and my guess is by June.....IT WILL HAVE FEDERAL RECOGNITION, RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES like any other legal marriage does......even if an individual State doesn't yet have to recognize it!!!

Actually and unfortunately......most states have NO-FAULT divorces.....so, infidelity is irrelevant grounds for divorce!!!

Frankly, if folks like you were really serious about the sanctity of Marriage......you'd fight harder to not make divorce so easy!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#666 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this is EXACTLY what I was referring to......it is a LEGAL MARRIAGE and just because some states and the federal government refuse to recognize it DOESN'T make it any less legal......and my guess is by June.....IT WILL HAVE FEDERAL RECOGNITION, RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES like any other legal marriage does......even if an individual State doesn't yet have to recognize it!!!
Actually and unfortunately......most states have NO-FAULT divorces.....so, infidelity is irrelevant grounds for divorce!!!
Frankly, if folks like you were really serious about the sanctity of Marriage......you'd fight harder to not make divorce so easy!!!
All states now have no-fault divorce. New York was teh very last state to legalize it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#667 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and you are the one who claimed marriage would cut down own AIDS in the gay community. As you just pointed out, marriage is not required for monogamy nor is it a guarantee of of it.
So that argument has no merit.
I wasn't the person who made that claim......seeing that HIV/AIDS is prevalent in the heterosexual community as well.....especially with regards to men who are on the "DOWNLOW".......my comment as well as Tony C's was with regards to us personally!!!

I do appreciate you doing what you're doing though.......running from one point to another and when you being debunked......changing course to try and make it seem that Gays and Lesbians are like you......you really should have read the Essay I posted to you yesterday.......maybe you'd realize that all the points you are trying to make......have already been addressed!!!

Here is that link again.......I do suggest that others read it as well:
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#670 Mar 30, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
except several religious denominations already have, as well as many governments already have. I think you're obviously on teh losing end of this.
You are very likely correct. Which is why I am already looking forward to how that change will inevitably cause other changes, which I can take advantage of.

Which is what I said in the very beginning.

The whole point of this discussion was pointing that out.

No argument can be made against a father-son marriage that cannot be applied to gay marriage. The existing kinship is irrelevant since marriage supercedes that (as we are all kin in some manner and cousins can already marry in some places). The claim of the lack of being similarly situated is nonsensical since that is not a limiting factor in entering contracts.

I'm just pointing out what the gay marriage advocates are really pushing for.(and they would be more vocal about the plural and familial aspect of it if they were REALLY for marriage equality)

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) 16 min Rose_NoHo 5,949
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... 9 hr The Wheeze of Trump 5
News New mayor supports young people 11 hr not all eh 1
News Taiwan to make landmark gay marriage ruling 19 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 1
News 'He did it to himself': Anthony Weiner faces pr... May 22 overlord 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) May 21 Truth to Power 31,985
News Church 'rejoices' after decision to offer same-... May 20 Grief Counselor 1
More from around the web