Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK ga...

Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage

There are 1605 comments on the Fox News story from May 14, 2013, titled Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage. In it, Fox News reports that:

As a crowd of thousands roared from the lawn of the state Capitol, Minnesota Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

Omni 40

Duluth, MN

#1464 Jun 16, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is trying to say gay is the new black. Interracial marriage is not specific to black and white couples. I live in LA and have plenty of friends who are Asian and Mexican couples, White and Persian, Black and Persian, ect.
Same sex marriage is an issue regarding marriage equality same as interracial marriage was once an issue of marriage equality. Same as a Woman's right to vote was once an equality issue same as the right for Blacks to vote was once an equality issue. Black men were allowed to vote before woman. So when women fought for the right to vote as well, would you have to told them, female is not the new black as if that some how meant they should be allowed to vote?
What I am saying is that sexual deviants deserve no special rights, they should be treated no different than single people period. A man and woman joined in marriage will never be duplicated by any other arrangement, no matter what you may think. If gay marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, why are you still fighting for it? Evolving isn't a good answer, Marriage was never all inclusive, and shouldn't be. Do you care that homosexuality numbers are exploding in our youth? Why would there be more people 'born' with this deviancy now than just 15 years ago? Because it's a choice, always has been, always will be. The word 'birthers' shows how much disdain gay's have for those who can procreate, even though their existence depended upon it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1465 Jun 16, 2013
Gays don't want special rights, just those guaranteed by the constitution to all citizens. SSM isn't a duplication of anything; it is legal marriage, period.

No, marriage wasn't always inclusive--blacks couldn't marry whites, for one thing. Remember how that was denied even though the constitution in fact DID insist on equal protection? They had to fight, and now we are.

Evolution has nothing to do with it, and bringing it up only show it's another area included in the vortex of your vast ignorance.

There's no evidence that there are more gays now than before; we just aren't hiding anymore. Deal with it.

"Birthers" refers to the idiots who think obama was born in kenya, cretin; you probably mean "breeders", which is used to denote bigots who think hetero humping is somehow superior to anything else.
Omni 40 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I am saying is that sexual deviants deserve no special rights, they should be treated no different than single people period. A man and woman joined in marriage will never be duplicated by any other arrangement, no matter what you may think. If gay marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, why are you still fighting for it? Evolving isn't a good answer, Marriage was never all inclusive, and shouldn't be. Do you care that homosexuality numbers are exploding in our youth? Why would there be more people 'born' with this deviancy now than just 15 years ago? Because it's a choice, always has been, always will be. The word 'birthers' shows how much disdain gay's have for those who can procreate, even though their existence depended upon it.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1466 Jun 17, 2013
Omni 40 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I am saying is that sexual deviants deserve no special rights, they should be treated no different than single people period.......
Your deviant sexual fantasies about gay folks aside, marrying for attraction, and love are hardly "special rights".

Don't straight people do it every day? Isn't it the societal norm?

At least try logic.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1467 Jun 17, 2013
Omni 40 wrote:
<quoted text>
... Evolving isn't a good answer, Marriage was never all inclusive, and shouldn't be........
YEAH! That's why we can still marry children, that we can marry many at one time, that women are considered chattel, and that people of different races are banned from marrying!!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1468 Jun 17, 2013
Omni 40 wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Do you care that homosexuality numbers are exploding in our youth? Why would there be more people 'born' with this deviancy now than just 15 years ago? Because it's a choice, always has been, always will be........
LOL!

You are too funny. Do you really think this way?

There are no more gay people than there were - it's just that fewer gay youth feel the need to hide from "people" like YOU. You know, live a lie, marry one of your heterosexual kids, make everyone's life miserable.

Ans you think this is a BAD thing?

Just how do you think a kid has the where-with-all to completely remove all attraction to the opposite gender that you say we are all born with, and completely replace is with only the attraction to the same gender, at the ripe old age of 12-14, and often without ever meeting a gay person?

MAGIC! Poof! Heterosexuality be gone!

Geesh. Again, at least TRY for logic.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#1469 Jun 17, 2013
water_nymph wrote:
Can you not tell a female from a male?
Guess not, dude.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#1470 Jun 17, 2013
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are/will ALWAYS be certain people who cannot marry the one they love. Siblings, Father Daughter, cousins...etc. Redefining Marriage to fit a deviant sexual lifestyle is absurd. Single people don't get any marriage benefits either, why are they discriminated against? Marriage is not all inclusive, never has been, never will be, no matter how much the gays holler about it.
This is funny, because in certain comics, Superman has been shown having feelings for Supergirl, who is his cousin
No Big Deal

Beacon, NY

#1471 Jun 18, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Coming from a guy who's never read the constitution and wouldn't understand it if he did...Um ok dude.
Then tell us oh great ignorant one,What does the 14th Amendment say about "EQUAL" treatment under the law? Of course the Constitution doesn't mention gays,but then it doesn't have to! ALL Americans are covered under that Amendment even you are entitled to equal treatment under the law,as it is gays are not! But that will be changing soon and there isn't a damn thing your hate can do about it! It seems you are the one who needs to study the document as your ignorance and stupidity is unbelievable!

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#1472 Jun 18, 2013
No Big Deal wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell us oh great ignorant one,What does the 14th Amendment say about "EQUAL" treatment under the law? Of course the Constitution doesn't mention gays,but then it doesn't have to! ALL Americans are covered under that Amendment even you are entitled to equal treatment under the law,as it is gays are not! But that will be changing soon and there isn't a damn thing your hate can do about it! It seems you are the one who needs to study the document as your ignorance and stupidity is unbelievable!
So I guess that covers polygamy and incest marriage too. After all, you're all about "EQUAL treatment under the law"

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#1473 Jun 18, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>So I guess that covers polygamy and incest marriage too. After all, you're all about "EQUAL treatment under the law"
You're to late on that one. Polygamy was out lawed and on the books back in the 1800's. Utah couldn't become a state with it. As for incest marriage....really? You want it ....go for it! Get back to us after your visit to the court house, let us know how it went.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#1475 Jun 18, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Guess not, dude.
If you think your childish attempts at insult affect intelligent adults, maybe you should think again.

You just have no intelligent conversation in you, so you resort to 1st grade attempts at insult. I guess you don't know that it says much more about you than it does the people to whom you are "speaking".

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#1476 Jun 18, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>So I guess that covers polygamy and incest marriage too. After all, you're all about "EQUAL treatment under the law"
You're comparing apples to oranges again.

And, just for your information, it should cover plural marriages if all parties are of consenting age and in agreement with each other. Why should people not be able to marry more than one person? When you speak of 'Biblical marriage' do you realize that plural marriages were the norm? Jesus did not change that in his teachings. He taught the Torah, not the Bible.

As far as incest, you are just being creepy by mentioning it in the same context with gays. Incest breeds physical and mental health problems. Gay marriage does not carry any of that with it. Please try to have an adult conversation instead of just parroting what other bigots have said.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1477 Jun 18, 2013
TrueBlood wrote:
He doesn't want either of the perversions, including your perversion, homosexuality. But you freaks preach equality for all. Hypocrite.
And you, stupidly, have no answer that would negate equal protection. If there is not state interest served by denying equal protection of the law, it is the law of the land.

Only a fool would state otherwise.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#1478 Jun 18, 2013
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't want either of the perversions, including your perversion, homosexuality. But you freaks preach equality for all. Hypocrite.
And bigots too...

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#1479 Jun 18, 2013
water_nymph wrote:
Incest breeds physical and mental health problems. Gay marriage does not carry any of that with it.
Disagree, dude

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1480 Jun 18, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
Disagree, dude
You have a first Amendment right to disagree. That doesn't make your position any more valid or truthful.

Congratulations, you are a confirmed imbecile.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#1481 Jun 18, 2013
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>You're comparing apples to oranges again.
And, just for your information, it should cover plural marriages if all parties are of consenting age and in agreement with each other. Why should people not be able to marry more than one person? When you speak of 'Biblical marriage' do you realize that plural marriages were the norm? Jesus did not change that in his teachings. He taught the Torah, not the Bible.
As far as incest, you are just being creepy by mentioning it in the same context with gays. Incest breeds physical and mental health problems. Gay marriage does not carry any of that with it. Please try to have an adult conversation instead of just parroting what other bigots have said.
Better loosen up that flannel shirt you're wearing. It's cutting the circulation off to your brain

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1482 Jun 18, 2013
Civil marriage is a contract; a contract cannot be based on an illegal premise. SSM has never been illegal--it simply wasn't recognized by the state. If polygamists and incest fans want to marry, they need to overturn the laws pertaining to those situations first.
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't want either of the perversions, including your perversion, homosexuality. But you freaks preach equality for all. Hypocrite.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#1484 Jun 18, 2013
TrueBlood wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have time to research it but I think you're wrong about some parts of what you're saying. Some states a while back and may still do have some kind of bans on homosexuality in regards of what they can or cannot do. Seems like that would make it illegal to marry. Maybe you can shed some light on what I'm thinking about, without me looking it up.
you'd be wrong.

go read about lawrence vs. tx and you'll find that all laws regarding sodomy were invalidated.

the laws regarding same sex marriage are separate - hence the current trials.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1486 Jun 18, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you'd be wrong.
go read about lawrence vs. tx and you'll find that all laws regarding sodomy were invalidated.
the laws regarding same sex marriage are separate - hence the current trials.
Yup.

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 Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 38 min Wondering 1,041
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr Termiraider 7,198
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 6 hr too lazy to log in 198
News Reluctant Kentucky clerk gets time for gay marr... 6 hr WasteWater 4
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 9 hr NoahLovesU 34,812
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 17 hr Wondering 542
News Archbishop unjustly bars lay reader for marrying Thu satanlovesyou 186
More from around the web