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

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2022 Apr 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you are determined to remain an ignorant fool, no matter what.
Well in 'real' words...I'm not fooled by your propagand...
You are a nut. There is strong evidence of genetic influence on homosexuality. I merely pointed out that no one has found a left-handed gene.
However, we know there is no gay gene...we don't know that there is not left handed gene...they can not rule a gene out...
Correlations suggest a strong genetic component, just as they do for gayness.
Actually, genetics has been removed as a source for homosexuality...
If you want to use science to support your arguments, you have to be informed about the science that knocks your arguments off their pedestals, as well. Otherwise, you simply portray yourself as foolish.
Back at'cha!
Exactly. So how close do you really think we are to controlling sexuality through prenatal hormones?
When did I say that??? I don't know what the solution would be...I just believe that if they discover a malfunction, they can somehow fix it...I'm not sure 'what' the fix would be....
Wishful thinking for a bigot. An unnecessary and danger-laden attempt to thwart mother nature for anyone else.
Do you think that if a mother knew her child could be born without a birth defect caused by a malfunction in the womb, she would not chose that option???
Again, you fly your flag of bigotry. Gay children are completely healthy.
If it's determined that this a malfuction...it could be the above statement is incorrect....
Yet no gene has been located. Are the offspring of two left-handed people left-handed? Could there possibly be more than one gene involved?
Don't know...not a genetisist.
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. Falling in love with someone of a different race is not genetic. So why do you insist that being gay be genetic?
Not sure what comparison you are trying to create, but race is definitely genetic...sexuality is definitely NOT genetic...
Finding out is just fine. Intervening with no good reason is malpractice.
If it is determined to be a defect as a result of a malfunction...it most certainly should be treated that way...
Since gays are part of society and always have been and since gays occur in every species, it seems reasonable to assume that they serve some useful purpose in nature. Without understanding that purpose, you wish to change nature?
...and what would that purpose be???
Me too. It works great for heterosexuals and many bisexuals. You've never heard of growth hormones? You don't do much reading, do you?
I've had no reason for this information. However, as I said, it must have been researched because someone needed a cure...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2023 Apr 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are always talking about how happy ex-gays are. And here is the leader of the ex-gays for two decades running admitting that he lied the entire time.
He is one person...he doesn't represent everyone...

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#2024 Apr 26, 2013
fr Get That Fool:

>That person has nothing to do with me, and I don't know who he is, and I can not speak to his statement...sorry...<

He's a nut who claims one can "become straight". Too bad he's a LIAR.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#2029 Apr 27, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
He is one person...he doesn't represent everyone...
You obviously don't pay attention.

He said publicly, as the leader of Exodus International, that ex-gay therapy doesn't work because he knows personally and as the leader of the biggest ex-gay group that it doesn't actually change even one person's orientation to eliminate same-sex attractions. All they do is repress the attraction but it is always there.

Exodus International now officially rejects "conversion therapy" as valid and useful.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2031 Apr 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-oh...someone didn't read the article on how ridiculous it is to compare ssm with the civil rights movement...tsk tsk tsk....
Apparently you didn't read the article on how anti-miscegenation bigots used the same arguments against interracial marriage as bigots like you against same sex marriage.

And it is possible and valid to compare the struggles of various minorities trying to secure their civil rights. The struggles aren't identical nor are their experiences with discrimination the same but there are similarities. I'm sure Jews don't consider the 2000 years of persecution and discrimination they've faced at the hands of various Christians around the world to be comparable to the struggles of blacks in America either. Nor would Americans of Japanese descent that were sent to internment camps in WWII consider their plight the same as Holocaust victims. Unfortunately for bigots like you, there is no minimum requirement of pain and suffering that must be met before a minority group can legally or morally challenge the discrimination they've faced, Fool. Only uneducated people like you think otherwise.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2032 Apr 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure...civil rights are rights extended to every citizen....
Gays already had the right to marry, long before ssm, and many of them actually did marry....long before ssm....
Your "equal application of the law" fallacy was discussed in the article you ignored about bigots of yesteryear using the same arguments against interracial marriage that bigots like you use today against same sex marriage. After all, the prohibition against interracial marriage applied equally to both blacks and whites, didn't it FOOL?

The fallacies of "equality of application of laws" and "separate but equal" enabled and perpetuated segregation for another hundred years after racial discrimination was banned by the 14th amendment. Intelligent and rational people finally recognized such justifications as the discrimination it was. But since you aren't among the ranks of intelligent and rational people, it's understandable why you cling to long discredited justifications for discrimination against minorities.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2033 Apr 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy: The Next Marriage Battle?
By Evan Lenow - April 18, 2013
While the battle over same-sex marriage still rages, it is hard to imagine what the next battle might be. However, astute observers of the marriage debate have already seen the newest challenge to the definition of marriage—polygamy. In an article this week on Slate, Jillian Keenan proposes that the legalization of polygamous marriage is a desired result of the current marriage debate. She argues:
While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
Keenan is not playing the “same-sex marriage is a slippery slope” card to argue against same-sex marriage. In fact, she ridicules that argument as a “tired refrain.” Instead, she brands herself as a feminist who believes polygamy is in the best interest of women and society and perfectly in keeping with the arguments for same-sex marriage.
Besides the 2011 lawsuit to decriminalize bigamy and polygamy in Utah filed by the stars of TLC’sSister Wives, the discussion of polygamy and its connection to the same-sex marriage debate has been fairly silent. Keenan, however, wishes to end that silence.
I O W....she wants to tell the truth of the matter and that is that ssm and polygamy are going hand in hand to redefine marriage in this country...
And yet in no country or state in which same sex marriage has been legally recognized has polygamy also been legally recognized. That's a statistical correlation of zero which means there's no relationship between the two. Further, ignoring the fact people have been challenging anti-bigamy laws in the US for almost 150 years doesn't make that fact go away.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2034 Apr 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one trying to elevate themselves to African American suffrage...doesn't apply...just makes you less credible...
African American "suffrage"? Who here has compared the fight for legal recognition of same sex marriage to the restriction of voting rights of African Americans? Gays that are citizens can already vote, you uneducated FOOL.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2035 Apr 28, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not talking about race...and race is not gender....
Sexual orientation is an innate human characteristic just like race and sex. And just like race and sex, certain normal variants of those innate characteristics historically have been subjected to discrimination by those possessing the majority variant and/or the power to do so.
Poly 4 the People

Schenectady, NY

#2036 Apr 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet in no country or state in which same sex marriage has been legally recognized has polygamy also been legally recognized. That's a statistical correlation of zero which means there's no relationship between the two. Further, ignoring the fact people have been challenging anti-bigamy laws in the US for almost 150 years doesn't make that fact go away.
"Yet" is the key word here. Why is it difficult to accept that legal SSM opens the door to legal plural marriage? Why does it matter to u if it is legalized?

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3234/muslim...

"Treating second and subsequent partners in polygamous relationships as separate claimants could mean that polygamous households receive more under Universal Credit than under the current rules for means-tested benefits and tax credits." — House of Commons legal brief, July 19, 2012

Muslim immigrants with more than one wife will see an increase in their social welfare benefits beginning in 2013, when reforms to the British welfare system come into effect.

Although polygamy is illegal in Britain, the state effectively recognizes the practice for Muslim men, who often have up to four wives (and in some instances five or more) in a harem.

Currently the state pays extra wives in polygamous households reduced amounts of individual income support, in addition to the normal amount received by the husband and his first spouse.

Under the new rules, however, the extra wives will be eligible to claim a full single person's allowance (despite being married), while the original married couple will still receive the standard married person's allowance.

The changes are part of wide-ranging reforms to the welfare system that are being implemented by Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government, which admits that it wants to treat extra wives as single so that the state will not officially be recognizing polygamy as it is under the current system.

Critics who had hoped the government reforms would do away with benefits for polygamy altogether say the so-called Welfare Reform Bill is simply opening up a loophole for polygamous families to claim more money from the state.

Details of the changes were revealed in a 13-page legal brief dated July 19, and published by the library of the House of Commons. The document states: "Treating second and subsequent partners in polygamous relationships as separate claimants could mean that polygamous households receive more under Universal Credit than under the current rules for means-tested benefits and tax credits."

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#2037 Apr 28, 2013
fr Get That Fool:

>What is ADF??? No one is trying to discredit gays...ssm has given polygamy a legal lift....if you consider that discrediting gays...then you have a problem...<

No, YOU are the one with the problem. You constantly LIE about GLBT's, make up garbage about our supporters and us, and continually attempt to discredit GLBT's. What have we ever done to YOU, personally? No generalities, solely PERSONAL experience.

It's simple: polygamy is illegal, and Marriage Equality is NOT. Plain and simple.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2038 Apr 28, 2013
Poly 4 the People wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yet" is the key word here. Why is it difficult to accept that legal SSM opens the door to legal plural marriage?
It doesn't open the door because the two are different issues. One is focused on removing the restriction on the sex of marriage participants while the other is focused on removing the restriction on the number of participants. Further, sexual orientation is an innate characteristic of humans, a minority variant of which has had their ability t marry restricted compared to the majority variant, raising constitutional equal protection issues. Polygamy currently is universally prohibited to all US citizens, not just a certain class of citizens, which raises no (or at least different) equal protection issues.
Poly 4 the People wrote:
Why does it matter to u if it is legalized?
I don't have a problem with US citizens exercising their constitutional right to petition government to redress their grievances. However, the legal arguments against marriage prohibition and the nature of the minority status of gays is quite different than that of polygamists.
Poly 4 the People wrote:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute. org/3234/muslim-polygamists-we lfare-benefits
"Treating second and subsequent partners in polygamous relationships as separate claimants could mean that polygamous households receive more under Universal Credit than under the current rules for means-tested benefits and tax credits." — House of Commons legal brief, July 19, 2012
Muslim immigrants with more than one wife will see an increase in their social welfare benefits beginning in 2013, when reforms to the British welfare system come into effect.
Although polygamy is illegal in Britain, the state effectively recognizes the practice for Muslim men, who often have up to four wives (and in some instances five or more) in a harem.
Currently the state pays extra wives in polygamous households reduced amounts of individual income support, in addition to the normal amount received by the husband and his first spouse.
Under the new rules, however, the extra wives will be eligible to claim a full single person's allowance (despite being married), while the original married couple will still receive the standard married person's allowance.
The changes are part of wide-ranging reforms to the welfare system that are being implemented by Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government, which admits that it wants to treat extra wives as single so that the state will not officially be recognizing polygamy as it is under the current system.
Critics who had hoped the government reforms would do away with benefits for polygamy altogether say the so-called Welfare Reform Bill is simply opening up a loophole for polygamous families to claim more money from the state.
Details of the changes were revealed in a 13-page legal brief dated July 19, and published by the library of the House of Commons. The document states: "Treating second and subsequent partners in polygamous relationships as separate claimants could mean that polygamous households receive more under Universal Credit than under the current rules for means-tested benefits and tax credits."
This article points out some of the policy issues that need to be addressed when polygamy is given some type of legal recognition. Three or more marriage participants can have a quite a different legal and fiscal impact than two.

Since: Mar 07

Hanover, VA

#2039 Apr 29, 2013
Poly 4 the People wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yet" is the key word here. Why is it difficult to accept that legal SSM opens the door to legal plural marriage? Why does it matter to u if it is legalized?
.
Another argument that says that gay folks should not legally marry, not because of anything THEY have done wrong, not because it's bad for them, their kids, or the vast majority of society, but because it might cause a very few straight people to behave badly.

Don't you find these types of arguments rather embarrassing, since they point to the weaknesses in YOUR sort, not gay folks?

I would be ashamed of all heterosexuals, if your opinion of them is correct.

Fortunately, it's not, and very few straight folks have difficulty understanding the difference between 2, and 3-4-5-6.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2040 Apr 29, 2013
Poly 4 the People wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yet" is the key word here. Why is it difficult to accept that legal SSM opens the door to legal plural marriage? Why does it matter to u if it is legalized?
No more than legal inter-racial marriages opened the door for legal plural marriages.

You DO realize the bigots made the exact same argument about inter-racial marriages?

Plural marriages are no more likely now than before same-sex couples (or inter-racial couples) started marrying. That's why no state or country which has legalized marriage for same-sex or opposite-race couples has legalized plural marriages, in spite of all the hype.
Poly 4 the People

East Granby, CT

#2041 Apr 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No more than legal inter-racial marriages opened the door for legal plural marriages.
You DO realize the bigots made the exact same argument about inter-racial marriages?
Plural marriages are no more likely now than before same-sex couples (or inter-racial couples) started marrying. That's why no state or country which has legalized marriage for same-sex or opposite-race couples has legalized plural marriages, in spite of all the hype.
Why would it bother u if polygamy was legalized? Its seems hypocritical for gay marriage advocates not to at least tacitly support it. Polygamous families do exist in this country.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2042 Apr 29, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
He is one person...he doesn't represent everyone...
Oh but the two dozen temporarily ex-gays who make their living fooling idiots like you do represent everyone? I don't think many people believe you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2043 Apr 30, 2013
Poly 4 the People wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would it bother u if polygamy was legalized? Its seems hypocritical for gay marriage advocates not to at least tacitly support it. Polygamous families do exist in this country.
It doesn't bother me if polygamy is legalized, as long as they're not allowed to marry minors like they have a habit of doing.

My point was same-sex couples marrying is no more likely to lead to polygamy being legalized than it was when inter-racial couples were allowed to marry.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2044 Apr 30, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexual orientation is an innate human characteristic just like race and sex.
NOPE! That's not true...there is no gay gene, therefore this is not an 'innate' characteristic...it is 'caused' by something...a malfunction somewhere....pay attention to your own scientists...
And just like race and sex, certain normal variants of those innate characteristics historically have been subjected to discrimination by those possessing the majority variant and/or the power to do so.
A 'variance' is the taste one has in the opposite sex...some like tall, some like short, some like thin, some like fat...etc..'that' is a variance....

This is closer to being proven as an 'abnormality'...a 'malfunction' possibly starting in the womb...

Pay attention to your own scientists sometime..

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2045 Apr 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't bother me if polygamy is legalized, as long as they're not allowed to marry minors like they have a habit of doing.
My point was same-sex couples marrying is no more likely to lead to polygamy being legalized than it was when inter-racial couples were allowed to marry.
Sorry...another lie..ssm has opened the door for polygamists to challenge marriage statutes in the name of marriage equality....liar! Soon it will be incest marriages as well, fighting under the same umbrella...hope you all are proud...history will reflect that homosexuality was the downfall of marriage in this country...congrats!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2046 Apr 30, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but the two dozen temporarily ex-gays who make their living fooling idiots like you do represent everyone? I don't think many people believe you.
One dozen does not represent everyone...what don'tyou get???

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 36 min chris toal 26,681
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 59 min kjw51 167
Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats ... (Apr '12) 1 hr Brian_G 1,900
Under-equipped Ukrainian soldiers get aid from ... 1 hr Lukashenko is Dr ... 2
Alaska's 1st known gay marriage in Arctic town 1 hr TomInElPaso 42
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 4 hr KiMare 39
Washington County in Florida the Only Focus of ... 5 hr Rainbow Kid 7
More from around the web