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

#815 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Wills can be contested, medical powers of attorney get ignored EVERY DAY. Besides, why should gay people incur thousands of dollars in legal fees that a $28 marriage license covers?
Marriage inheritance rights are ignored too. Ask Anna Nicole Smith.

Wills trump everything except marriage. And if your gay "spouse" if married to someone else, your gay marriage has issues.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#817 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>A legend in your own mind, how exciting. You are nothing but a bullshit artist, and not a very good one, either. Don't you think the entire civilized world has heard your lame arguments by now? Condemning your daughter to a sexless marriage is very cold, but I know you would go bat-shit cra-cra if she brought home a gay man to marry. How long do you think it would last? Don't be stupid. Men & women hit 40 and start to realize they better make the most of their life while there's time left.
Searching... Searching. Intelligent points:0

You have nothing else so you have to resort to insults. You must hang out with Tony C.

How in the world would I "condemn" my daughter to a marriage? Did the laws suddenly change so I can force other people to marry? It would have to be her choice, dumba$$. And if she wanted that, whatever her reasons, I would support it. Why would you oppose her choice? Are you against choice?
I asked my wife and she agree with me.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#818 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What does 'next of kin' mean?
Google is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_of_kin

In many cases, a person's next of kin is a cousin--a person they could marry.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#819 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> We pay taxes that support YOUR benefits. Why should we pay more taxes than you? Because you can clog with orphanages and Foster-care system with throw-away children?... we pay for that, too.
You don't pay more taxes than me. However, those kids we produce will be paying your Social Security.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#822 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> NOHING WRONG with a sexless marriage by mutual agreement? Are you kidding me? Most guys have sexless marriages? You are nuttier than a peanut farm. No wonder you're so bitter and angry, you need to get laid. Nothing Wrong? Not having regular sex with your spouse is a MAJOR cause of relationship breakdown. What are you 16 years old and a virgin?
Who the hell are you to tell anyone how much sex they should have?

It's sad you are too stupid to get the joke about guys in marriage.

Some people want a lot of sex, some want none or very little. Who are you to set the standard for them? It is simply none of your business. As long as they mutually agree, they will both be happy about it.

If you think marriage is just about sex, then you should realize that gays have sex all the time already and therefore have no need for marriage at all. Now go away until you get smarter. shoo.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#823 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Not for long..... You neocons tried to slow the process down, but you're just pissing in the wind. Same Sex marriage will be the law in all 50 States very soon. Then you can find another scapegoat to bitch about (instead of working to fix your own miserable life).
At least you admit it is not a constitutional right.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#824 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>I know what it means, silly. It means legally related... like siblings. Marriage creates LEGAL kinship between two unrelated adults. A $28 dollar marriage license takes care of all the legal concerns.
Are you claiming cousins do not already have a legal kinship?

If not, then what happens when they get married? The marriage relationship SUPERCEDES (and comes with more rights and benefits) that relationship. Just as it would with father-son.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#830 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hilarious. Clueless, but funny for a teenager. I bet I pay more in taxes than you earn, joker boy, and I don't even work.
You don't work. What a surprise. I've been fully employed since I was 18.

You are welcome for the benefits I provide you and the other lazy losers like you.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#831 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Ask a medical doctor. No sex is BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH.
Again, you are strong in ignorance. No studies directly link celibacy to poor overall health.

If they exist, please provide one. Even one.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#832 Mar 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a wife. You're to young to be married. besides, it's fairly obvious you don't have the wisdom or experience to think this through to it's logical conclusion.
You are right. You caught me. My daughter just laughed at your stupidity.

If you had half a brain you would have read that I spent 20+ years in the military (and quickly shut down Sheeple when he/she made inane remarks about military service contracts). It is no surprise at all that you are unemployed and not contributing to society.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#833 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?
So, i showed you how it would benefit our society...

how is it going to cost our siciety anything as you suggested it would?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#834 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a nicer response than I would have given! Stupid people on my side of the argument piss me off!
I've done the nasty ones in the past......some just don't get it.

Have a great day!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#835 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Using your argument, gays AREN'T similarly situated as straight people. They can NEVER accidentally procreate like straight people can (and regularly do).
However, that would make us similarly situated to those heterosexuals who are able to marry past childbearing years that can't accidentally procreate and to those heterosexuals who can marry that are infertile/sterile who also can't accidentally procreate......therefore if those heterosexuals can marry, then Gays and Lesbians should also be allowed to marry!!!

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#836 Mar 31, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>So, i showed you how it would benefit our society...
how is it going to cost our siciety anything as you suggested it would?
When did you show me that? If you did and I missed it, I apologize. Please repost.

As many have pointed out, marriage comes with benefits. Some claim it is a thousand or so a years. Some claim it is half a million over a lifetime. Where do you think that money comes from?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#837 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Wills are challenged in courts all the time.

So are POAs.

If thats all same-sex couples need, then that should be all the hetero couples need.

Either extend the marriage rights to all, or get rid of all marriage rights.

As long as all couples are treated the same, I don't really care which way you go with it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#838 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nope, still wrong.

Maybe after the court rules you'll understand, but I doubt it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#839 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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 procreation is not required for marriage, the procreation issue is irrelevant.

That make unrelated adult same-sex couples similarly situated to unrelated adult opposite-sex couples.

The closeness of the legal kinship differentiates a 1st cousin couple from a father-son couple.

You really have no clue what make someone similarly situated.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#840 Mar 31, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
However, that would make us similarly situated to those heterosexuals who are able to marry past childbearing years that can't accidentally procreate and to those heterosexuals who can marry that are infertile/sterile who also can't accidentally procreate......therefore if those heterosexuals can marry, then Gays and Lesbians should also be allowed to marry!!!
And father-son are similarly situated with cousins who marry or gays who marry.

Personally, I disagree with your assessment that gays are similarly situated with heteros who cannot have kids because there is a bureaucratic burden to definitively prove those folks are infertile but, regardless, I do think there is a high probability gays will be able to marry everywhere. It may take 20 years or so but I think it will happen.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#841 Mar 31, 2013
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So a right can be denied just because it's easier to identify the fact that we can't procreate solely between the two?

Gee, sounds like one of the qualifications for suspect classification- an obvious trait.

Careful, you're helping the next court lay the groundwork to establish same-sex couples as a suspect class and therefor overturn all marriage bans.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

#842 Mar 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wills are challenged in courts all the time.
So are POAs.
If thats all same-sex couples need, then that should be all the hetero couples need.
Either extend the marriage rights to all, or get rid of all marriage rights.
As long as all couples are treated the same, I don't really care which way you go with it.
Marriage inheritance rights are also challenged. Ask Anna Nicole Smith. If you want something that will never be challenged, you aren't going to find it. Even in marriage.

Since no fault divorce has made the marriage contract more of a benefits program, and heteros have essentially made a joke of it, I think the gov't should get out of the marriage business and get rid of those rights.

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) 19 min RiccardoFire 6,759
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 20 min TimeToAct 31,997
News MIA gay marriage heroes 20 hr Nosy1 4
News Bar patrons keep drinking during armed robbery Wed anonymous 2
News Lorrie Morgan & Sammy Kershaw to Divorce (Oct '07) Tue Kenny Davis 31
News Newly released court documents cast doubt on Gi... (Dec '11) Tue Merchant of Alzhe... 40
News 'We feel extremely blessed': Two women get marr... (Aug '14) Jun 19 Going Islamic 135
More from around the web