Arguments against gay marriage echo those heard against racial intermarriage

Jan 6, 2013 Full story: www.courier-journal.com 138

When Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Pike County, Ky., voted last year to bar interracial couples as members, the condemnation was swift and universal: The head of the county ministers association said, "This is not the spirit of the community in any way, shape or form."

Full Story
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#41 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, polygamy requires changing the property and custody rules
do you mean like changing the law so the state doesn't look for a dad when it sees two mom's?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#42 Jan 7, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions about kids do not appear on marriage license applications or drivers license applications
nor do question appear on love...
are you saying marriage has nothing to do with LOVE?

its sad what you have to do to marriage so you can belong...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#43 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
This case is one of those that demonstrate procreation is not required to qualify for marriage. Marriage remains a fundamental right without procreational ability, intent, or desire.
Procreation is an individual choice, not the choice of the government.
it was a case where procreation was discussed and the court just had to discuss marriage (for some odd reason, huh)...
there sure are LOTS of those cases, aren't there?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#44 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and we consider that normal.
now if it was my dad who was attracted to men, I wouldn't be here at all!
see how that works?
and BTW, "illegitimate"?
do you mean the nexus between marriage and procreation?
No
.
illegitimate; as in 'bastard'
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#46 Jan 7, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
No
.
illegitimate; as in 'bastard'
what is a bastard?
a child BORN out of WEDLOCK...
so again, the nexus between procreation and marriage...

curious we judge procreation by marital relation given they are not related at all, right?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#47 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
do you mean like changing the law so the state doesn't look for a dad when it sees two mom's?
When marriages are treated as equal, the law recognizes the two parents in the marriage. It does not go after the sperm donor, surrogate mother, or biological parents of an adopted child. It goes after the legal parents, just as it does now. No changes in the laws are required.

This is just anti-gay politicians trying to punish gay people for being human.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#48 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nor do question appear on love...
are you saying marriage has nothing to do with LOVE?
its sad what you have to do to marriage so you can belong...
What is sad is YOU thinking you can do ANYTHING about it.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#49 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
it was a case where procreation was discussed and the court just had to discuss marriage (for some odd reason, huh)...
there sure are LOTS of those cases, aren't there?
There are those who wish to require procreation for marriage and marriage for procreation. The law has made it clear, there is no such legal requirement.

Turner is another that makes it clear not only is procreation ability not required but even the ability to have sex is not a requirement. Marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#50 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When marriages are treated as equal, the law recognizes the two parents in the marriage. It does not go after the sperm donor, surrogate mother, or biological parents of an adopted child. It goes after the legal parents, just as it does now. No changes in the laws are required.
but the law would have to assume two women were the sole parents...a clear falsehood...
so common sense aside?

logic would indicate that another potential support payor is out there....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#51 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
what is a bastard?
a child BORN out of WEDLOCK...
so again, the nexus between procreation and marriage...
curious we judge procreation by marital relation given they are not related at all, right?
If and when married people decide to adopt or have children through assisted or other methods, there is a legal relationship between the parents and the child. This is one of the many various reasons some people including gay people decide to get married, while others have no intent or desire for children.

But marriage is not a requirement for procreation, nor is procreation a requirement for marriage nor is raising children a requirement. Your desire to require children for the fundamental right of marriage is not a requirement of law, yet ignores the fact many gay couples are raising children.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#52 Jan 7, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
What is sad is YOU thinking you can do ANYTHING about it.
What is sad is your posting day after day insisting I am not a lawyer and insulting everyone thinking you are making a point,
its down right pathetic...

but you taking a female first name, the last name of poop, now that is priceless...

but i guess for a transgendered, its oddly and grossly accurate...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#53 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual.
of the straight individual, gay marriage is not a fundamental right.
I wonder what the difference between gays and straights is?

you must at least notice that you have to revert to your claim its a fundamental right each time we talk and also I know you are aware the courts have not found this..
it must make you nervous...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#54 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
there is a legal relationship between the parents and the child. This is one of the many various reasons some people including gay people decide to get married,.
but marriage and procreation are not related at all...
do you even understand consistency?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#55 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
There are those who wish to require procreation for marriage and marriage for procreation. The law has made it clear, there is no such legal requirement.
Not a requirement, an expectation...
would adding an entire class of people who were physically incapable of love have a detrimental effect on the institution of marriage?
I know you wont answer and also I know why you wont...
pedro

United States

#56 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When marriages are treated as equal, the law recognizes the two parents in the marriage. It does not go after the sperm donor, surrogate mother, or biological parents of an adopted child. It goes after the legal parents, just as it does now. No changes in the laws are required.
This is just anti-gay politicians trying to punish gay people for being human.
guess you missed the news from Kansas,where the state went after a sperm donor for 2 queer women for child support after they split up.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#57 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
but marriage and procreation are not related at all...
do you even understand consistency?
I understand you want to conflate a relationship with a legal requirement. There is no legal requirement of procreational ability, intent, or even to have sex.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#58 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
but the law would have to assume two women were the sole parents...a clear falsehood...
so common sense aside?

logic would indicate that another potential support payor is out there....
They signed a contract.

All the law would have to do is to recognize the legal contract the parties signed giving sole custody and responsibility to the two mothers.

Kansas wants to ignore the contract and punish the sperm donor, rather than recognize the contract between the two women agreeing to joint parenting.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#59 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
of the straight individual, gay marriage is not a fundamental right.
I wonder what the difference between gays and straights is?
you must at least notice that you have to revert to your claim its a fundamental right each time we talk and also I know you are aware the courts have not found this..
it must make you nervous...
There is no specification that any fundamental right is a straight fundamental right. The decisions say marriage is a fundamental right of the individual.

I am well aware the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether gay people are considered "persons" under the constitutional requirements to treat "all persons" equally. Time will tell, yet they have made mistakes in the past when they permitted continued discrimination based on tradition rather than equal treatment for all persons. I hope they get it right this time rather than waiting another 20 years or so.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#60 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a requirement, an expectation...
would adding an entire class of people who were physically incapable of love have a detrimental effect on the institution of marriage?
I know you wont answer and also I know why you wont...
We already allow people who are physically incapable of love to get married.

You wish to use the procreation argument as an excuse to deny equal legal treatment, even thought it is not a legal requirement. And as old people demonstrate every day, procreation is not even an expectation for many.

Again, this also ignores the fact gay people are raising children even though there is no requirement to do so for marriage.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#61 Jan 7, 2013
pedro wrote:
<quoted text>
guess you missed the news from Kansas,where the state went after a sperm donor for 2 women for child support after they split up.
No, that is what we are talking about. Kansas has decided to go after the sperm donor, rather than the other mother, even though she signed a contract. Yet they have never done this when the parents are straight.

All the law would have to do is to recognize the legal contract the parties signed giving sole custody and responsibility to the two mothers. Kansas wants to ignore the contract and punish the sperm donor, rather than recognize the contract between the two women agreeing to joint parenting.

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.

Louisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Will You Be Voting Republican? 11 min Grimes Equals Obama 36
Woman accused of hitting father of her children... 6 hr Sara Rose 4
Louisville woman charged with attempted murder 6 hr Sara Rose 5
Matthew Eckert v. Sandra McLaughlin for 30th Di... 6 hr Sara Rose 3
White women or White men... whose on top of Ame... 6 hr Sara Rose 1
The blonde that works at peddlers mall in Middl... 8 hr Trying to help 14
Germantown Car Sleepers 12 hr Watchful Eye 1
Carla Rushing Aka The pornstar Cody lane Living... (Nov '11) Oct 13 Alexandria 254
Louisville Dating
Find my Match

Louisville Jobs

Louisville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Louisville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Louisville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]