However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 Full story: NewsCenter 25 2,351

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.

Full Story

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#760 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you just blew that one. There is no disputing marriage reduces STD's. Tell the truth.
Prove it.

Monogamy reduces STD. Marriage does not guarantee monogamy. There is no data on the gay community to show whether the casual MSM sex decreases with marriage (i.e. those who engage in it are logically unlikely to marry in the first place)

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#761 Mar 30, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You have very serious moral and character deficiencies.
Oh no. Tony C doesn't respect me anymore.

Oh, wait. That doesn't matter. Discussing points, facts and logic matter to me. The personal attacks just indicate you have nothing else.

Once you have something, I'll address you again.

At least Sheeple and woodtick try to argue intelligently. They went down a rabbithole with the whole "similarly situated" thing, but at least they were trying.

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?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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...

=)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

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

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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

#783 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text> Nope. None of those are prohibited for that reason. If you must know
similarly situated adj. with the same problems and circumstances, referring to the people represented by a plaintiff in a "class action," brought for the benefit of the party filing the suit as well as all those "similarly situated." To be similarly situated, the defendants, basic facts, and legal issues must be the same, and separate lawsuits would be impractical or burdensome.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
That adjective doesn't even apply to contractual law. It applies primarily to class action suits.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/similarly-situ...
Similarly Situated
Alike in all relevant ways for purposes of a particular decision or issue. This term is often used in discrimination cases, in which the plaintiff may seek to show that he or she was treated differently from others who are similarly situated except for the alleged basis of discrimination. For example, a plaintiff who claims that she was not promoted because she is a woman would seek to show that similarly situated men -- that is, men with similar qualifications, experience, and tenure with the company -- were promoted. This term is also used to define the group of people on whose behalf a class action may be brought: Everyone in the group must be similarly situated as to the issue(s) litigated. For example, in a case alleging that a credit card company charged improper fees, only people who had a credit card with that company during the time when the improper fees were imposed could be members of the class.
Or how employees or customers are treated. That is why you can't find a single instance of contracts not being allowed between people who are Similarly Situated.
Now don't you feel stupid? I tried to help you by telling you to figure out what is, but you chose to wallow in ignorance. So sad.
After all that jibber-jabber, and you STILL drew the wrong conclusion.

When people are similarly situated as others entering a contract they are entitled to enter into the same type of contract.

When they're NOT similarly situated as others then they can be banned from entering into those contracts.

That's why siblings can't marry, but unrelated adults can- siblings are similarly situated to unrelated adults, so they can be banned from marriage.

Unrelated same-sex couples ARE similarly situated to unrelated opposite-sex couples, so there is no constitutional justification to ban us from entering into the same marriage contract as opposite-sex couples do.

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 11 min harmonious 50,033
Luhrmann, Gisele hit Chanel's Parisian boulevard 43 min Jumper The wise 4
Divorce Law Out Of Synch With Same-Sex Marriage 52 min Jumper The wise 19
Ex-Virginia Gov. McDonnell guilty on 11 corrupt... 1 hr Swedenforever 5
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 3 hr Grau 93
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 3 hr Boro parent 31,281
SCOTUS could inject same-sex marriage into races 4 hr Mykro 4

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE