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

#762 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Straights don't need the gov't to bless it to make a public commitment either then.....Problem solved!!!
Wills, Medical Directives or POA and other legal documents have failed Committed Same-Sex Couples in the past......if a marriage license had been had by these couples......those issues would have been a lot easier to resolve!!!
You are right. They don't who said they did?

Just because Wills, Medical Directives or POA and other legal documents were not handled in a legal matter by some individuals does not mean they are not good and effective vechicel. Some people feel wills fail them when they don't get their way. I'd have to see the individual case to make a specific determination whether they were screwed by the system or not.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#763 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You did.
Hey Einstein, you even responded to the post where NorCal brought it up in the link.

http://www.topix.com/forum/toparts/gay-marria...

He/she first brought it up yesterday. Please try to keep up.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#764 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Then wouldn't Gays and Lesbians be similar situated to infertile/sterile/past childbearing age Couples? Do we prevent 55 year old heterosexuals from marrying? If the answer is no and it is.......then, one can't deny Gays and Lesbians from marry based on the ability to naturally procreate!!!
Any way you want to look at this issue.......the argument has been addressed and it has lost or been rejected!!!
Technically, yes. However, when the rules when into effect there was no way of determining who was fertile. Women as old as 66 have naturally conceived and given birth. They just fell under the umbrella of the 99% other people who could have "accidents".

Using your logic, we cannot prevent siblings from marrying based on birth defect rate unless we prohibit any couple who has a high probability of birth defects from marrying. And that includes women over 40.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#765 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see this last part of your post......yes, I agree......he/she is just like the folks from NOM, AFA, FRC and the other anti-gay idiots who can't understand that their arguments have been made, debunked and are irrelevant to the issue.........some just can't see that issue and then will blame Gays and Lesbians for other things that aren't going to happen or could happen without our fight!!!
Hugs
Since you think you are pretty smart, lets see if you can answer the original question:

If marriage is declared a right, what possible reason is there to prevent a father and son from getting married?

Procreation is not an issue.
The law does not prohibit family member from entering other contracts due to some imagine "undue coercion".
"Similarly situated" does not apply in contract law.
They deserve equal protection and due process.
Affinity does not provide the same level of legal kinship. Marriage would trump the lower level of legal kinship.
Love nor intercourse are required for marriage.

So far no one has been able to come up with a supportable 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.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#766 Mar 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd rather have that poster just admit that he/she hates us and get it over with than to run in circles over the same things that most of us have already explained over the last 4 to 5 years!!!
B
I don't hate you. I have no animosity toward you at all. I just do not want to commit society to providing benefits to cases where society does not get a reciprocal benefit.

If society decides it wants to, then I will take full advantage of that to the legal limit.

If procreation is not the basis for marriage (despite what the SCOTUS said in Skinner, Loving, etc,) then what is the reason for the limit of two in a marriage? Can't three people love each other?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#767 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Same to you!
:-)

Can you believe that we both will be celebrating our 5th wedding anniversary and what a celebration it will be if SCOTUS rules as I believe they will!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#769 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't hate you. I have no animosity toward you at all. I just do not want to commit society to providing benefits to cases where society does not get a reciprocal benefit.
If society decides it wants to, then I will take full advantage of that to the legal limit.
If procreation is not the basis for marriage (despite what the SCOTUS said in Skinner, Loving, etc,) then what is the reason for the limit of two in a marriage? Can't three people love each other?
Sorry, but that's not your decision to make......and whether you think society benefits from us being allowed to marry or not, it's irrelevant to how our laws and Constitution work!!!

Skinner was NOT about Marriage.......just that Procreation is a Fundamental right that can not be denied to someone because of their IQ.

Loving was NOT about procreation......just that a couple could not be denied the fundamental right to marry the person of their choosing regardless of skin color.

Zablocki was not about procreation either, but about the fundamental right of marriage that can not be denied regardless of how responsible one might be towards a previous child.

Just because Marriage and Procreation have been mentioned as FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS doesn't mean they have to go hand in hand.......today, couples procreate and don't marry or marry and never procreate.......the right to marry or procreate CAN NOT be denied for ANY REASON!!!!

An yes, Marriage is fundamental to our survival because it has been proven time and again that a healthy marriage is good for many positive aspects in our lives!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#770 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you think you are pretty smart, lets see if you can answer the original question:
If marriage is declared a right, what possible reason is there to prevent a father and son from getting married?
Procreation is not an issue.
The law does not prohibit family member from entering other contracts due to some imagine "undue coercion".
"Similarly situated" does not apply in contract law.
They deserve equal protection and due process.
Affinity does not provide the same level of legal kinship. Marriage would trump the lower level of legal kinship.
Love nor intercourse are required for marriage.
So far no one has been able to come up with a supportable 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.
Look, I'm not going to get into this discussion with you.......I doubt fathers want to marry their sons or daughters, or Mothers want to marry their sons or Daughters, or brothers wanting to marry sisters and even if for some bizarre reason they did.......that would be up to them to change the marital requirements that the State decides......it has NOTHING to do with me or my marriage.......the same is true for polygamy and polyandry relationships as well.......and if these alternative relationships wanted their supposed rights that folks like you claim......then they don't need to sit back and wait until Gays and Lesbians have obtained their right to marry......they can go and fight for these rights, but I don't see that happening......and personally, I don't have an issue with it one way or the other......I wish them all the luck in the world, but it is NOT my fight and therefore it is not something I need to deal with!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#771 Mar 30, 2013
Lilith wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a stupid morazz. STFU
Wow, it was better for you to sit back and look pretty than to open your mouth and show the ugliness that goes down to your soul!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#772 Mar 30, 2013
Sawber wrote:
Just because Wills, Medical Directives or POA and other legal documents were not handled in a legal matter by some individuals does not mean they are not good and effective vechicel.
Actually in the two specific cases that I was thinking about, the legal documents weren't the issue.....it was the HOMOPHOBIC attitudes of those individuals who wanted to create harm in a time that the family was already in an emergency situation.....and both of these situations had nothing to do with someone getting what they believed they should have!!!

“Wild WILD West”

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#774 Mar 30, 2013
Gay Shame !

Gays have a high rate of

1. Anal Cancer.
2. Chlamydia trachomatis.
3. Cryptosporidium.
4. Giardia lamblia.
5. Herpes simplex virus.
6. Human immunodeficiency virus --- AIDS !
7. Human papilloma virus.
8. Isospora belli.
9. Microsporidia.
10. Anal Gonorrhea.
11. Viral hepatitis types A , B & C
12. Anal Syphilis.
13. Gay Bowel Syndrome.
14 Condyloma acuminata.
15. Hemorrhoids.
16. Nonspecific proctitis.
17. Anal fistula.
18. Perirectal abscess.
19. Amebiasis.
20 Anorectal trauma and foreign bodies.
21. Shigellosis.
22. Rectal ulcers.
23. Lymphogranuloma venereum.
24. Anal Chlamydia.
25. E. histolytica.
26, Entamoeba histolytica.
27. Anal herpes.
28. Gay MRSA.
29. Scat nausia vomiting syndrome.
30. Torn sphincter - ANAL INCONTINENCE.
31. Gay anal hampster fetish.
32. Homosexual gerbil syndrone.
33. Gay anal rodent rabies.
34. Gay weasel anal death syndrome.
35. Homosexual throat warts.
36. Facial MRSA.
37. Warped mind syndrom
http://www.topix.com/forum/seattle/T1RCIRO59E...

Gay SHAME - The Abomination
http://www.topix.com/forum/seattle/T3GNR0ACNJ...

=)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#775 Mar 30, 2013
Lilith wrote:
<quoted text>
It is better for you to just STFU you idiot.
Lol!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#776 Mar 30, 2013
Trinite wrote:
Gay Shame !
Gays have a high rate of
More stupidity being posted......not surprised because obviously folks like you can't think on their own......STD's and fetishes are just as prevalent in the heterosexual community and nothing on your list is actually confined to just Gay and Lesbians!!!
hubbub

Pittsburgh, PA

#777 Mar 31, 2013
youtube.com/watch... …… Lets Get Ugly Seriously then

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#779 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't hate you. I have no animosity toward you at all. I just do not want to commit society to providing benefits to cases where society does not get a reciprocal benefit.
If society decides it wants to, then I will take full advantage of that to the legal limit.
If procreation is not the basis for marriage (despite what the SCOTUS said in Skinner, Loving, etc,) then what is the reason for the limit of two in a marriage? Can't three people love each other?
But our society WILL benefit from making SSM legal. in many ways. it is harming our society to discriminate against gays in this way.

seems like you (again) just ended your own argument...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#780 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need the gov't to bless it to make a public commitment.
What specific legal protections That a will, Medical POA, and HIPPA release didn't cover?
Are you just stupid? Where did I say I needed the govt blessing to make a public committment? I clearly said we had a public ceremony over 26 years ago; it was only after marriage became legal in Massachusetts that made it official.

We already had a will & medical & general poa. Those provide nowhere near the rights conferred by marriage. You're an ignorant moron if you think they do.

There are hundreds of state rights conferred by the state and over 1100 rights conferred by the federal govt that only come from marriage. I suggest you google them and educate yourself a bit before making such stupid statements.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#781 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Using that logic, in most states (and according to the federal gov't) gays are not similarly situated.
Give me AN example where family are not similarly situated.(And actual evidence supporting your claim)
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.
And no, biologically related people do not have the same kinship as marriage, so they do not already have it.
Obviously you don't understand what it means at all.

Marriage is one contract closely related family members can't enter into because they're not similarly situated to unrelated adults.

There's your example.

Obviously the claim that same-sex couples aren't similarly situated to opposite-sex couples IS the current dispute over marriage laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#784 Mar 31, 2013
Jew Homo You wrote:
We are gonna 'force' gay sex into your kiddies lil minds in scools, [email protected], boyscouts, daycares, and udder places. We wany them thinking about weird naked man kissing so they grow up flucked up like the rest of amerika. Use bastarz fight our wars and we own yoar polititians, print your dough, manipulate the courts and laws, and follyhood psychos. We're gonna destroy this nation, in fact we already have, how else do you think your drug and alcohol addled asses would even consider buttsexing as marriage.
LOL
You'll just have to get over it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#785 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
Not a single gay couple fall within the intent of the benefits, which is why they were omitted.
Not a single infertile hetero couple fall within the intent of hte benefits, so they should be omitted as well then.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#786 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there is a reason. A much higher incidence of birth defects, which has a negative impact on society. Granted, these days we understand that the birth defect rate is lower than the incidence with some other couples that marry, but yet we still let them marry.
Heck, the defect rate between first cousins is about the same as a woman over 40 having a kid.
Now compare defect rate between those who have Downs (and a person with Downs can marry a (snicker) non similarly situated person without Downs) have a defect rate higher than siblings having kids.
So if they're infertile, then why can't siblings or father-daughters currently 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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr crucifiedguy 4,727
News Video company challenges gay marriage law 3 hr Treasure Drove 2
News Democrats pressure Obama to offer blanket pardo... 12 hr Wildchild 1
News Japan's sex problem is so bad that people are q... 14 hr Dr Modi 1
News Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... Tue Sco-ttt 2
News Were 'Fixer Upper' Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines... Tue Xstain Mullah Aroma 17
News Slovenians vote on whether to uphold same-sex m... (Dec '15) Mon fathiwady 13
More from around the web