As Gay Marriage Heads To Court, A Look Back At The Bumpy Ride: NPR

Mar 22, 2013 Full story: www.npr.org 240

Gays and lesbians have adopted the phrase "it gets better" as a kind of slogan to assure young people that life won't always be so tough.

Looking back, life has gotten dramatically better for LGBT people in the United States in a very short period of time. The modern gay rights movement began less than 50 years ago. Today, supporters of same-sex marriage outnumber opponents.

Now, the Supreme Court is about to hear two big cases that could shift the landscape for gay rights again.

Full Story
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Mar 22, 2013
A nice and concise outline of the Gay Liberation movement.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#2 Mar 22, 2013
snyper wrote:
A nice and concise outline of the Gay Liberation movement.
Agreed -- for the United States, anyway.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3 Apr 10, 2013
"Today, supporters of same-sex marriage outnumber opponents."

They must be counting the indifferent as supports. If they weren't, the statement is false.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#4 Apr 10, 2013
Wondering wrote:
"Today, supporters of same-sex marriage outnumber opponents."
They must be counting the indifferent as supports. If they weren't, the statement is false.
Wonder no more. The facts show otherwise. Here's a summary of recent polls -- and none of them had to lump "indifferent" results with the "support" group to make any of them the majority.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#5 Apr 11, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Wonder no more. The facts show otherwise. Here's a summary of recent polls -- and none of them had to lump "indifferent" results with the "support" group to make any of them the majority.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Any Poll Can Be Manipulated To Support An Agenda
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1212-05.h...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6 Apr 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Any Poll Can Be Manipulated To Support An Agenda
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1212-05.h...
Yeah, i remember the desperate polling attempts by the GOP last election cycle also...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7 Apr 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, i remember the desperate polling attempts by the GOP last election cycle also...
Their attempts to make the wealthy even more wealthy on the backs of the less fortunate were obvious. The tea party is a joke. Their priorities out of step with working America. Bush proved that giving them more money would result in no hiring frenzy. In fact, unemployment grew under the Bush tax cuts.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8 Apr 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Their attempts to make the wealthy even more wealthy on the backs of the less fortunate were obvious. The tea party is a joke. Their priorities out of step with working America. Bush proved that giving them more money would result in no hiring frenzy. In fact, unemployment grew under the Bush tax cuts.
yeah...keep thinking that the world is rigged against you in some global conspiracy. if you really had the talent and drive to become wealthy you would have, and could have done so.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9 Apr 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah...keep thinking that the world is rigged against you in some global conspiracy. if you really had the talent and drive to become wealthy you would have, and could have done so.
Talent and drive? Wonderbread doesn't even have common sense and the ability to stay on topic.

The reality remains that equality will happen not only because it is a constitutional mandate, but because it is the right, moral, and just thing to do.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10 Apr 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah...keep thinking that the world is rigged against you in some global conspiracy. if you really had the talent and drive to become wealthy you would have, and could have done so.
One more time:
"Bush proved that giving them more money would result in no hiring frenzy. In fact, unemployment grew under the Bush tax cuts."

You know how bankers get wealthy? They have this ting called a bailout. When they make money, they keep it. When they lose money we bail them out. Talent and drive have nothing to do with that.

You speak like a one percenter. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#11 Apr 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time:
"Bush proved that giving them more money would result in no hiring frenzy. In fact, unemployment grew under the Bush tax cuts."
You know how bankers get wealthy? They have this ting called a bailout. When they make money, they keep it. When they lose money we bail them out. Talent and drive have nothing to do with that.
You speak like a one percenter. BWAHAHAHAHA!
not that hihg up the economic ladder, but yes, i made my way in the world and supported you by being one those that pay the majority of the taxes in this country.

you are correct, Bush's plan were not based on fact. this is why most conservatives did not support him. that was the current iteration of the GOP that did that, a dn they don't even know how to spell conservative.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12 Apr 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time:
"Bush proved that giving them more money would result in no hiring frenzy. In fact, unemployment grew under the Bush tax cuts."
You know how bankers get wealthy? They have this ting called a bailout. When they make money, they keep it. When they lose money we bail them out. Talent and drive have nothing to do with that.
You speak like a one percenter. BWAHAHAHAHA!
Excuse me, troll, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? You seem to have some difficulty maintaining course.

Care to comment on marriage equality? The Bush tax cuts and the bank bailout really have nothing to do with this topic.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Apr 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Any Poll Can Be Manipulated To Support An Agenda
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1212-05.h...
Operant fallacy:

Apophasis

"Apophasis" or "argument by innuendo" involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was never caught taking money from the cash box." In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo implies that the employee was a thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct statement of accusation

- "Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments (6 ed.)",(2008) Cengage Learning. p. 130, T. Edward Damer, Ph.D.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14 Apr 11, 2013
lides wrote:
Care to comment on marriage equality? The Bush tax cuts and the bank bailout really have nothing to do with this topic.
What part of 'marriage is for a man and a woman' are you having a problem with? Do you not recognize that as a "comment on marriage equality?"

As for the Bush comments, you are not required to read what you feel is off topic. If what you deem to be off topic angers you I'll try to pick up the pace. Now go play with your crayons before I report you to your mother.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15 Apr 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
What part of 'marriage is for a man and a woman' are you having a problem with?
The part where you are having difficulty offering a rational basis for such a definition.
Wondering wrote:
Do you not recognize that as a "comment on marriage equality?"
Were you trying to make a point here, because if so, you dismally failed. Your irrational definition of marriage is utterly irrelevant to equal protection of the law. Even Glenn Beck understands as much. It's pretty sad if you do not understand as much as Glenn Beck.
Wondering wrote:
As for the Bush comments, you are not required to read what you feel is off topic. If what you deem to be off topic angers you I'll try to pick up the pace. Now go play with your crayons before I report you to your mother.
I read it, I realized you were weak minded and off topic, then I pointed out the fact that you were weak minded and off topic. It is relevant to your credibility if you are weak minded and off topic.

Have a nice day.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#16 Apr 11, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of 'marriage is for a man and a woman' are you having a problem with? Do you not recognize that as a "comment on marriage equality?"
As for the Bush comments, you are not required to read what you feel is off topic. If what you deem to be off topic angers you I'll try to pick up the pace. Now go play with your crayons before I report you to your mother.
the part where SSm is now part of the definition also.

you know, the real world...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#17 Apr 12, 2013
lides wrote:
irrational definition of marriage
Two men or two women. Hope that helps, but I believe you are beyond helping.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#18 Apr 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the part where SSm is now part of the definition also.
you know, the real world...
In the real world DOMA, while under attack, is the law.
If DOMA is struck down the states will still regulate marriage.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#19 Apr 12, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
In the real world DOMA, while under attack, is the law.
If DOMA is struck down the states will still regulate marriage.
and many of those states have SSM, as I pointed out. the trend is only going one way.

sure there will be holdouts, like the states where a majority of voters still think inter-racial marriages should be illegal, but by the time they are just holdouts it will be the law of the nation.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#20 Apr 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and many of those states have SSM, as I pointed out. the trend is only going one way.
sure there will be holdouts, like the states where a majority of voters still think inter-racial marriages should be illegal, but by the time they are just holdouts it will be the law of the nation.
Most states want no part of it. Gay marriage has nothing to do with interracial marriage unless the two men or two women are of a different race.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

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
Under-equipped Ukrainian soldiers get aid from ... 4 min Zeppelin 4
Alaska's 1st known gay marriage in Arctic town 31 min Pope Bennie s Closet 44
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr chris toal 26,681
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr kjw51 167
Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats ... (Apr '12) 2 hr Brian_G 1,900
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 4 hr KiMare 39
Washington County in Florida the Only Focus of ... 6 hr Rainbow Kid 7
More from around the web