However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

There are 2351 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

#671 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!!!
Sure it does. If you asked the federal gov't if two people of the same sex were married, the official answer is "No, not according to federal law".

I agree with you about no-fault divorce 100%. Which is why I think the gov't should get out of the marriages completely if no-fault is going to remain in place. The contract has a cost to society but effectively no benefit since it has almost no power to keep that union intact.

But as I pointed out before, adding restrictions or taking away privileges is almost impossible in this country.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#672 Mar 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You big fat liar.
Brilliant response Doo-Doo head.

Just because you are hateful and bigoted doesn't mean everyone is.

Moron.

(See I can call names too and it makes me look just as smart!!!)

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#675 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Hey, I'm just providing the FACTS from the CDC. Pretend reality is different all you want. It doesn't change it.

"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. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU."

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

And considering I quoted that essay "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." it is pretty clear I read it.

That is what lead to discussions that some gays think legal marriage will force them (or their partner) to be faithful when they otherwise would not have.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#676 Mar 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>I guess I missed the part where you look intelligent.
I never claimed to. I just pointed out that you certainly do not, based on your posts here.

At least you are keeping that record alive. YAY!!!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#677 Mar 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are forgetting one simple fact. Incestuous marriages are CRIMINAL. No one is advocating, suing, or asking for that to be overturned. It's just a low IQ talking point.
So was homosexuality until just a few years ago.

And in some states that is already changing. In Rhode Island, it is now legal to have sex with a sibling.

Oh, I understand. You think rights should only be granted if enough people scream for them. Unfortunately, that goes against he intent of our Constitution and form of gov't.

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#678 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Should read..another and when you ARE being debunked...

Should be AREN'T like you...

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#679 Mar 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You ARE a liar. What would a gay man want with your daughter? A friendship? That's not marriage, that's fraud.
So you are claiming marriage is just about sex?

No, marriage is a legal contract with tax, inheritance, immigration and other benefits and does not require sex nor love. There are all kinds of scenarios that would warrant such a marriage.

You asked the question. I answered honestly. I'm not surprised you are too bigoted and hateful to accept the answer.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#680 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Should read..another and when you ARE being debunked...
Should be AREN'T like you...
English as a second language?

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#681 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I'm just providing the FACTS from the CDC. Pretend reality is different all you want. It doesn't change it.
"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. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU."
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
And considering I quoted that essay "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." it is pretty clear I read it.
That is what lead to discussions that some gays think legal marriage will force them (or their partner) to be faithful when they otherwise would not have.
I know EXACTLY what you are doing......you, like others keep getting hung up on HIV/AIDS as it strictly relates to Gay men.....and more specifically MEN ON MEN sexual practices......which isn't always regarding Gay men, but men who engage in sexual activity, yet identify as heterosexual!!!

By the way, heterosexual couples both married and not do engage in spouse/partner swinging.......how do you think this plays into your sanctity of Marriage?

See, you want Gays and Lesbians to lead monogamous married lives, yet tend to ignore the fact that straight couples do and have had open marriages for years......and you can't place one standard on Gays and Lesbians who want to get married unless you are willing to do the same with straight folks!!!

Personally, I can only control and share what my personal beliefs are with regards to the importance of marriage, fidelity, monogamy and the marital vows I took the day I got legally married.......I know that I value both the sacred institution of marriage and my marriage specifically....not all married heterosexual couples can say that!!!

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#682 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
English as a second language?
No, smart-azz.......just rereading my post and discovered I skipped some words.......and corrected them........I tend to not type as fast as my thoughts go through my brain and therefore forget to type everything I wanted to!!!

What's your excuse?

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#683 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. If you asked the federal gov't if two people of the same sex were married, the official answer is "No, not according to federal law".
I agree with you about no-fault divorce 100%. Which is why I think the gov't should get out of the marriages completely if no-fault is going to remain in place. The contract has a cost to society but effectively no benefit since it has almost no power to keep that union intact.
But as I pointed out before, adding restrictions or taking away privileges is almost impossible in this country.
Trust me, you'd be right for the moment......but it won't ALWAYS be that way and again, after almost 5 years of being legally married and being discriminated against......the time is long overdue to correct that issue!!!

Yet, you feel it's perfectly legal to discriminate against the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples as you have repeatedly pointed out......funny, I'm not here to discriminate against the marital rights of heterosexual couples.......yet, you feel it's okay to cause harm to a fellow American Citizen based solely on who I am and who I love......real pathetic if ya ask me!!!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#684 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I know EXACTLY what you are doing......you, like others keep getting hung up on HIV/AIDS as it strictly relates to Gay men.....and more specifically MEN ON MEN sexual practices......which isn't always regarding Gay men, but men who engage in sexual activity, yet identify as heterosexual!!!
By the way, heterosexual couples both married and not do engage in spouse/partner swinging.......how do you think this plays into your sanctity of Marriage?
See, you want Gays and Lesbians to lead monogamous married lives, yet tend to ignore the fact that straight couples do and have had open marriages for years......and you can't place one standard on Gays and Lesbians who want to get married unless you are willing to do the same with straight folks!!!
Personally, I can only control and share what my personal beliefs are with regards to the importance of marriage, fidelity, monogamy and the marital vows I took the day I got legally married.......I know that I value both the sacred institution of marriage and my marriage specifically....not all married heterosexual couples can say that!!!
YOU brought up the STD argument. Not me.

And do you know WHY people relate it to gay men? Because the data shows that they are a small part of the population but the VAST MAJORITY of new cases. Guess what that makes AIDS?

I carry no delusions that all married people (or even the majority) are monogamous. I've never stated anything like that.

I also know that people DO NOT NEED the gov't to bless their relationship before they can remain faithful. Why do you?

I think it is safer and healthier for all people to be monogamous but that is irrelevant to reality.

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#685 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU brought up the STD argument. Not me.
And do you know WHY people relate it to gay men? Because the data shows that they are a small part of the population but the VAST MAJORITY of new cases. Guess what that makes AIDS?
Actually, this is a common denial tactic used by your side......I didn't bring it up.....you did.....sorry, but the fact is that you personally may not have brought it up.....but it has been put out there as a speaking point.......just like your continue posting about about HIV/AIDS.......it's irrelevant to the martial discussion because heterosexuals are NOT prevented from marrying even if they are HIV/AIDS positive.......just like your comment about other races having a high prison population instead of looking at the crimes in general.

We can go round-about this discussion all day long and it won't change the fact that denying federal rights, benefits and privileges to legally married Same-Sex Couples based solely on who they are and who they are married to is a violation of the Equal Protection Amendment and is why DOMA was enacted......because of nothing more than MORAL DISAPPROVAL of Gays and Lesbians........and that's not reason enough to make laws!!!

DOMA Section 3 will more than likely be tossed come June......and it probably won't be long before DOMA in general could be repealed by Congress.

Bottom line is this.....if a State defines marriage as between 2 consenting adults over the age of 18, regardless of gender.....then the Federal Government MUST recognize and provide the 1100 federal rights, benefits and privileges it confers to legal marriages of opposite-sex couples!!!!

You can continue to go round and circles if you desire......but I've got other things to do at the moment......have a great Saturday and a Happy Easter:-)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#687 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean an unpopular subset like family.
And no, privileges are not easily taken away. Try taking away the mortgage exemption for income tax. Good luck.
No, I mean an unpopular subset like only gay families, which is what they tried in California. That's why Prop 8 was overturned by the 9th circuit.

Numerous privileges are given & taken away & give back & taken away again. Only a moron would deny that just because they find a couple of examples of privileges which are a bit more politically popular and haven't been taken away.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#688 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why DID you get married?
Same reason most people get married. I found someone I love and wanted to make a public committment with him in front of our family & friends. We made it legal as soon as it was possible (about 20 years later) because we wanted the same legal protections for our family that every other married family has.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#689 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying things but can provide no evidence or concrete examples. Why is that?
Give me AN example where family are not similarly situated.
I know precisely what it means which is why I have no reservations about asking you to provide that example. If it is true, then there surely are examples where family cannot enter contracts because the are not sim sit.
Two biolgicaly related adults are not similarly situated to two non related adults.

The fact that they are curretly related IS the defining difference, because marriage establishes legal kinship which a biologically related couple already has.

Yes, the marriage contract being the primary example where 2 family members can't enter into.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#690 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
I also know that people DO NOT NEED the gov't to bless their relationship before they can remain faithful. Why do you?
.
But that was the primary argument in support of Prop 8 this week. The purpose of a marriage license is "responsible procreation'.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#691 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh. For the tenth time, because the rules for marriage were established long before that determination could be accurately made.
Sigh.

So for the tenth time, you really think people couldn't figure out a guy with his nuts blown off by a cannon ball couldn't procreate? Or an 80 y/o couple?

Believe it or not, people weren't THAT stupid even back then.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#692 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Full context:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888)."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/38...
Do you claim gay marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"? No. Only procreation is.
Try again.
No, the court got that part wrong.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#693 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.
Nope, if they oppose the right of same-sex couples to marry, that makes them anti-gay, no matter who they marry.

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 Royse-Hancock vows to be exchanged in Uniontown 47 min red ranger 6
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 1 hr WeTheSheeple 4,347
News Yes or no? Ireland votes on whether to legalize... 1 hr NorCal Native 5
News How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... (Nov '14) 2 hr Maravilla 1,323
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 2 hr Wanderer2452 3,665
News Anti-Gay Groups Gear Up To Fight A 30-Year-Old ... 5 hr Junk 3
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 8 hr Selecia Jones- JA... 32,978
More from around the web