Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK ga...

Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage

There are 1876 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.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#1579 Jun 19, 2013
I don't have a problem with same sex marriage as long as no one has a problem with me marrying my sister. Our relationship is not sexual but we are both single and she has a medical condition that requires extensive treatment. She does not have insurance to cover the huge expense of her treatments but I have a great health care plan through my employer that would be extended to my spouse if I were married. If I could legally marry my sister it would solve all of our problems. Do any of you who support gay marriage have a problem with me marrying my sister?

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#1580 Jun 19, 2013
I'm only asking for true equality for marriage.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1581 Jun 19, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so public nudity where children are present will NEVER be acceptable to you. Got it. But what would you do if the state you live in decides the social norms against public nudity are anachronistic, invalid and worthless?
Should the philosophy of moral relativism prevail to shape American laws, as secularists are working hard to accomplish, it wouldn't matter if you or other lone voices disapprove of public nudity because the major arguments against it would be based on religious principles that violate the concept of separation of church and state.
Suppose you try to stop the libertarian nudist movement. If recent history is a guide, you will be ridiculed, labeled a prude, ethnocentric, bigot or maybe a "puritan, Nazi, and fascist," as Scott Wiener was called in 2012 for trying to partially ban public nudity in San Francisco.
In recent decades, American secularists have made tremendous headway to reshape and redefine our country’s social mores, and laws based on an intrinsically flawed ethical theory.
For example, in May of 2013 the New York City Police Department instructed the city’s 34,000 police officers that should they encounter a woman in public who is topless but obeying the law, they should not arrest her.
The NYPD’s directive came after several years of litigation and protest (e.g., People v. Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss) from vocal secular groups. These activists successfully argued that indecency laws preventing women from baring their breasts in public was discriminatory and unconstitutional (sound familiar?).
Today, parents in New York have lost a legitimate social reason for persuading their teenage daughters to cover their chest in public; and secularists couldn’t be more proud about that.
Source: < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-... ;
You keep dodging the question......is what is going on in that which I posted acceptable to you?

If a teenage boy is allowed to expose his chest that may have a more developed chest because of being over weight......what is wrong with a girl who is not as developed going topless? or are you saying that a woman's breast is somehow more sexual than that?

I am not the judge of what others do......and if public nudity doesn't offend anyone, can it truly be considered indecent?

Now, that being stated, I do find exposing the private area of either sex offensive in public.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1582 Jun 19, 2013
Stop-It-Now- wrote:
<quoted text>Then why should society ever be accepting of something immoral and debase as same sex marriage and two lesbians having anal sex.
What you think is moral is irrelevant. If you think it's immoral, then don't do it. You can't force others to live by you religious moral standards.

Why is it that dullards arguing against equality hate freedom?
Billy Ringo

New York, NY

#1583 Jun 19, 2013
Stop-It-Now- wrote:
<quoted text>Then why should society ever be accepting of something immoral and debase as same sex marriage and two lesbians having anal sex.
.....two lesbians having anal sex ????????

My god, I am totally .......... you got any pictures of that?
The Coal Handlers Son

Commiskey, IN

#1584 Jun 19, 2013
No Big Deal wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try but all the major polls now show that a majority of ALL Americans are now in favor of marriage equality! Your post is laughable at best! Get a clue hate boy! California will return in the next week! Ain't it great!
Only poll you read was your boyfriends lastnight!
The Coal Handlers Son

Commiskey, IN

#1585 Jun 19, 2013
No Big Deal wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try but all the major polls now show that a majority of ALL Americans are now in favor of marriage equality! Your post is laughable at best! Get a clue hate boy! California will return in the next week! Ain't it great!
And the same people who support gay marriage voted for Obama and look where our country is now! In the toilet! You wait and see where this Obama Nation takes us!

“"Its A Brave New World"”

Since: Sep 12

London U.K.

#1586 Jun 19, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
<quoted text>
And the same people who support gay marriage voted for Obama and look where our country is now! In the toilet! You wait and see where this Obama Nation takes us!
Yeah,our country's better off than under bush! I can only imagine how it would have been under Romney the Mormon boy! LoL,Do you ever face reality you poor,poor little guy? I have a feeling that it's you who is in the toilet but only because you like the turds dropping in your face hate boy! By the way,did you hear that marriage equality is returning to California shortly? Mind your own business and stay out of others bedrooms! Unless you're a voyeur and like to watch,do you like to watch? None of your business!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1587 Jun 19, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
<quoted text>
And the same people who support gay marriage voted for Obama and look where our country is now! In the toilet! You wait and see where this Obama Nation takes us!
Stop blaming the President for what is wrong with this Country......it is just as much the faults of all the politicians and more the faults of the House Republicans......and we are still dealing with what's leftover from the Bush Administration!!!

I guarantee you Romney would not be able to do anything differently and would probably have cause more harm than good!!!

If you don't like the way the Country is being ran......then do something about it instead of just pointing fingers and placing the blame on one person!!!

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#1588 Jun 19, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Disagree, dude
How can you disagree with that? Do you think that somehow homsexual couples are secretly married to their first cousins and are having children or are you not aware that incest carries great consequences over generations? Here, maybe this will help you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2000519

and:

Results[edit]

Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[7] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
Increased genetic disorders
Fluctuating facial asymmetry
Lower birth rate
Higher infant mortality
Slower growth rate
Smaller adult size
Loss of immune system function
Many individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce.[8] Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental factors, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.[5][6][9]
Island species are often very inbred, as their isolation from the larger group on a mainland allows natural selection to work upon their population. This type of isolation may result in the formation of race or even speciation, as the inbreeding first removes many deleterious genes, and allows expression of genes that allow a population to adapt to an ecosystem. As the adaptation becomes more pronounced the new species or race radiates from its entrance into the new space, or dies out if it cannot adapt and, most importantly, reproduce.[10]
The reduced genetic diversity that results from inbreeding may mean a species may not be able to adapt to changes in environmental conditions. Each individual will have similar immune systems, as immune systems are genetically based. Where a species becomes endangered, the population may fall below a minimum whereby the forced interbreeding between the remaining animals will result in extinction.

Read remainder of article at:

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

By comparing gay marriage with incest, you are showing you know little of reality.

Here is my original post:

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.

You disagree with it because you do not know the difference between incest and homosexuality. You see them as virtually the same thing by comparing one to the other.

I know that I can't educate you because you do not wish to be educated. You wish to be prejudiced, bigoted and hypocritical.

Your holy book does NOT define marriage as between one man and one woman, by the way. I dare you to read the book and find anywhere in it where marriage is described that way.

If you were truly to have a biblical marriage, you'd still be offering the father (or oldest male relative) anything he asked as a price for the woman you wish to marry...such as 3 goats, a cow and money. You could marry as many women as you wish. Solomon had more than 900 wives. Marriage has been redefined by the church and you're not even aware of it. Jesus never changed the rules of marriage as it was practiced by the Israelites. Please read your book and find what is really taught in it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1589 Jun 19, 2013
Not at all, sweetcheeks. I'm sure it's a proud family tradition. All you have to do is overcome all those pesky incest laws.
Banned wrote:
I don't have a problem with same sex marriage as long as no one has a problem with me marrying my sister. Our relationship is not sexual but we are both single and she has a medical condition that requires extensive treatment. She does not have insurance to cover the huge expense of her treatments but I have a great health care plan through my employer that would be extended to my spouse if I were married. If I could legally marry my sister it would solve all of our problems. Do any of you who support gay marriage have a problem with me marrying my sister?

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#1590 Jun 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all, sweetcheeks. I'm sure it's a proud family tradition. All you have to do is overcome all those pesky incest laws.
Well that should be easy now that gays have redefined marriage and removed any underlying notions of sex and procreation that may have been associated with marriage in the past. Again, sex is not involved so I don't see how any law against incest is applicable to my situation. This is strictly about receiving spousal benefits and to deny us that opportunity in light of how we define marriage now seems to be a clear case of descrimination.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1591 Jun 20, 2013
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that should be easy now that gays have redefined marriage and removed any underlying notions of sex and procreation that may have been associated with marriage in the past. Again, sex is not involved so I don't see how any law against incest is applicable to my situation. This is strictly about receiving spousal benefits and to deny us that opportunity in light of how we define marriage now seems to be a clear case of descrimination.
Even if there were no laws against incest that would prevent you and your supposed sister from getting married......there are still requirements that the State sets and one of them is that the 2 indivuals getting married can NOT be blood related.......so, you'd have to fight to change the State's individual requirements in order to be allowed to marry.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#1592 Jun 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>Even if there were no laws against incest that would prevent you and your supposed sister from getting married......there are still requirements that the State sets and one of them is that the 2 indivuals getting married can NOT be blood related.......so, you'd have to fight to change the State's individual requirements in order to be allowed to marry.
Yes, but I believe that a strong argument could be made to the Supreme Court when we decided to no longer exclude any certain person or group of people from being legally married it would now be unconstitutional to exclude any person or group of people. If there is no incest then no law has been broken and blood relation can not be used to deny a marriage between two people. To do so would be to unjustly deny them spousal benefits.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1593 Jun 20, 2013
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but I believe that a strong argument could be made to the Supreme Court when we decided to no longer exclude any certain person or group of people from being legally married it would now be unconstitutional to exclude any person or group of people. If there is no incest then no law has been broken and blood relation can not be used to deny a marriage between two people. To do so would be to unjustly deny them spousal benefits.
Why can't blood relations be grounds to prevent 2 people from getting married? You're already related and it is the right of the States to set the requirements under which a Marriage License will be granted.

If you feel so strongly about this.....then file the lawsuit......I'm sure there is a lawyer out there just waiting for this sort of case!!!
The Coal Handlers Son

Chicago, IL

#1594 Jun 20, 2013
I've changed my mind. I hope gays get the right to marry then when they get divorced they'll lose their Liza Minnelli and Cher drag outfits in the divorce!

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#1595 Jun 20, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
I've changed my mind. I hope gays get the right to marry then when they get divorced they'll lose their Liza Minnelli and Cher drag outfits in the divorce!
Is that what happened to yours? DO TELL!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1596 Jun 20, 2013
Banned wrote:
Well that should be easy now that gays have redefined marriage and removed any underlying notions of sex and procreation that may have been associated with marriage in the past.
Procreation, or the ability to procreate, have never been a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of, legal marriage.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#1597 Jun 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>Procreation, or the ability to procreate, have never been a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of, legal marriage.
You're right but there is an underlying association between what we traditional define as marriage and the ability to procreate.

Banned

“This town is nuts...”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#1598 Jun 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>Why can't blood relations be grounds to prevent 2 people from getting married? You're already related and it is the right of the States to set the requirements under which a Marriage License will be granted.

If you feel so strongly about this.....then file the lawsuit......I'm sure there is a lawyer out there just waiting for this sort of case!!!
My scenario is hypothetical but rest assured that there are plenty of people out there who feel much stronger than I do on this issue and they will work to force the courts to define who can and can't marry.

What about age descrimination? How do you legally deny spousal benefits to fourteen year old kids if you allow same sex couples to legally marry?

I'm not against same sex marriage, myself, but I believe there is a way to allow same sex couples to receive certain spousal benefits while still preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

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 Amid worry, gay conservatives see hope for LGBT... 3 hr Speedieg 5
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr Just Think 5,003
News All You Need Is Love: Setting an example for In... 5 hr No 1
News Kylie Minogue and husband Joshua Sasse refuse t... 11 hr Rosa_Winkel 1
News Trump's victory has unleashed a wave of same-se... 19 hr Tootie 12
News A Pakistani Woman on Sex in Pakistan (Mar '10) 20 hr pawan8160176121 38
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Sun behtash007 263
More from around the web