However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NewsCenter 25

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.

Comments
761 - 780 of 2,351 Comments Last updated May 29, 2013

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#784
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jew Homo You wrote:
We are gonna 'force' gay sex into your kiddies lil minds in scools, gaydays@disney, 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#785
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#786
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#787
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The point is that if those were effective at providing all the rights necessary for a family, then there is no need for married heteros to have anything other than a will & poa.

Your ignorance is showing again.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#789
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We DON'T prevent siblings from marrying because of any probability of birth defects; we prevent them from marrying because they have an existing legal kinship and aren't similarly situated to an unrelated couple.

Since there is no requirement for procreation or even an ability to procreate in order to marry, that makes same-sex couples similarly situated to opposite-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#790
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
And existing legal kinship and not being similarly situated to an unrelated couple.

Similarly situated DOES apply to the marriage contract because unlike other contracts it is a protected constutitional right.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#791
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?
Good luck with that.

Only a total moron would think incest or polygamous marriages will be allowed just because same-sex couples can marry.

Cue the moron.......
Uve

Pittsfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#792
Mar 31, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You have very serious moral and character deficiencies.
It's about time you finally looked in the mirror.
Brown Lipstick

Pittsfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#793
Mar 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there is no requirement for procreation or even an ability to procreate in order to marry, that makes same-sex couples similarly situated to opposite-sex couples.
There is a continual requirement commanded through nature for procreation. By your own patetic relationship you totally threw away those abilities and virtues and yet expect the govt to provide for you from the failures of others. Not to mention benefits for a so called relationship that could NEVER produce one taxpayer or INCREASE the population as a whole. In fact you are a f*cking disease upon us all!
Happy Easter!
A$$CLOWN!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#794
Mar 31, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

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!!!
Wrong. Marriage may be a contributor to our happiness or even to the settling of humans and civilization, but that is not survival.

If marriage is fundamental to our survival, why are so many other species who do not marry still here on Earth? Do chimps marry? Yet they are still here.

What sets humans apart that marriage is necessary for our existence?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#795
Mar 31, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
So you are not really for marriage equity. You are only for you own little specific group. Well, I'll grant you that you at least have the guts to come out and admit it.

How do you think things would go if all straight people said the same thing about gays that you just said?

My point is that, once we make the change to allow gays to marry, those other marriages are inevitable. No one can come up with defendable arguments against them--because there are none.

And all those changes will be credited to the gay marriage movement. Congrats.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#796
Mar 31, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
That was a nicer response than I would have given! Stupid people on my side of the argument piss me off!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#797
Mar 31, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
And that will happen regardless. Sorry, when you have humans involved, they will do stupid, selfish, and illegal things. Marriage will not change that.

If administered fairly and properly, wills, Medical POA, etc are very effective.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#798
Mar 31, 2013
 
Lilith wrote:
<quoted text>
It is better for you to just STFU you idiot.
If you do not have an intelligent argument or point to make, why post? If you want to just be hateful and call names, why not do it to people in real life?

Or are you too much of a coward?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#800
Mar 31, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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...
How so and does that benefit rise to the level that society should be willing to pay for that benefit?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#802
Mar 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I merely made the point that you don't need gov't blessing to make to public commitment. It was implied that you do. Is what I said true or not? If it true, why are you getting upset and arguing with me?

As for wills, POA, etc, yes they are very effective. To claim they aren't simply makes you a hyperbolic drama queen (see I can respond as intelligently as you).

How would a will not be effective?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#803
Mar 31, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
How so and does that benefit rise to the level that society should be willing to pay for that benefit?
in many ways. it will show that we are a moral society that treats homosexuals equally. it will strengthen the social construct of marriage. it will show that we don't let silly religious cults rule our laws or nation..

how will society have to pay for htis in any way?

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#805
Mar 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If any of what you say here is true, you would be able to provide a link. You can't and we ALL (including you) know why. Because it simply isn't true.

As I pointed out, "similarly situated" simply doesn't apply in contract law and cannot apply to prevent two people from entering a contract.

As you have pointed out the CLOSEST it could come to having relevance is that such contracts do not even apply to a group of people because they are not similarly situated with another group. This is a distortion of the meaning, but I'll go with it to make a point.

As you claim, gays currently aren't similarly situated with straight people. If it is shown that is the reason for their being denied marriage, then the exact same ruling will apply to same sex family member as well. Either way, same effect-- that father-son will be able to marry due to this ruling.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#807
Mar 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Using your argument, gays AREN'T similarly situated as straight people. They can NEVER accidentally procreate like straight people can (and regularly do). The court and logic confirm that is the reason gov't is involved in marriage in the first place.

Since that situated condition will never change, there is no argument to be made to allow them to any more than for father-son.

BTW, how are cousins (who can marry) and differently situated than father-son? In both cases, the marriage kinship supercedes the affinity.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#809
Mar 31, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a single infertile hetero couple fall within the intent of hte benefits, so they should be omitted as well then.
Except that it is a huge bureaucratic burden to test all of those people and not worth it to society. So yes, they get to take advantage of something which they were not specifically intended. However, for gays, there is no burden since they can NEVER accidentally procreate. Ever. At all.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••