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

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1893 Apr 22, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
No,'accurate' statements are not...but emotionally immature statements certainly are....
Then it's a good thing my statements about you are accurate.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1894 Apr 22, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it's a good thing my statements about you are accurate.
...it's a bad thing they are so emotionally immature...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1895 Apr 22, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
...it's a bad thing they are so emotionally immature...
Thanks for agreeing my statements about you are accurate.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1896 Apr 22, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for agreeing my statements about you are accurate.
Only an emotionally immature person would think I agreed with you on that...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1897 Apr 22, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Only an emotionally immature person would think I agreed with you on that...
You've yet to dispute or refute that your husband married a c*nt so silence is deemed as acceptance.

Since you seem to think using vulgar language makes one emotionally immature, then welcome to your own self-proclaimed club since you used "%ag" in post # 1880 to refer to a gay person. In Topix, I call it like as I see it without regard to the niceties of etiquette when it comes to bigots like you. If you don't like that you fit the description of a vulgar word, then change your behavior so it's no longer applicable.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1898 Apr 22, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it would seem appropropriate to an inappropriate person...wouldn't it???
Yep, you're obviously married to a dude who has a hankering for other dudes.

Congrats; you're his beard!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1899 Apr 22, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You've yet to dispute or refute that your husband married a c*nt so silence is deemed as acceptance.
Since you seem to think using vulgar language makes one emotionally immature, then welcome to your own self-proclaimed club since you used "%ag" in post # 1880 to refer to a gay person. In Topix, I call it like as I see it without regard to the niceties of etiquette when it comes to bigots like you. If you don't like that you fit the description of a vulgar word, then change your behavior so it's no longer applicable.
The ridiculous disputes itself...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1900 Apr 22, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The ridiculous disputes itself...
Yes, you do.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1901 Apr 23, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you do.
Can't come up with anything better than that?? Really???

The Washington Times reports:

[Polygamy is] getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.

... "Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier — you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."

... If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard. A Utah-based religious-freedom lawyer, Mr. Barnard has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades.

"We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.

Interesting....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1903 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't come up with anything better than that?? Really???
The Washington Times reports:
[Polygamy is] getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.
Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.
... "Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier — you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."
... If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard. A Utah-based religious-freedom lawyer, Mr. Barnard has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades.
"We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.
Interesting....
What is most interesting is that they quote the wackos at ADF as proof that ssm will lead to polygamy. In fact, the best argument for polygamy may very well be reading you Bible, not pointing to same sex couples.

Moreover, we do not cringe at the mention of polygamy. We merely point out that it is not our goal nor our battle.

Do basketball players cringe when you mention violence in hockey? Of course not. It has nothing to do with them.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1904 Apr 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What is most interesting is that they quote the wackos at ADF as proof that ssm will lead to polygamy. In fact, the best argument for polygamy may very well be reading you Bible, not pointing to same sex couples.
However, as the article points out...polygamy made no headway in the legal system before ssm, now they feel confident enough to press forward with their own agenda, since ssm has made some legal footprint for them to follow...that's the point...you all can no longer deny the slippery slope argument...
Moreover, we do not cringe at the mention of polygamy. We merely point out that it is not our goal nor our battle.
Oh no my friend...you all do 'waaaaay' more than that...you attack, hyperventilate, foam at the mouth, etc, whenever someone brings up the correlation between allowing ssm and it leading to polygamy, incest marriages, etc...well, the prophecy is taking hold...you all can no longer deny the connection...
Do basketball players cringe when you mention violence in hockey? Of course not. It has nothing to do with them.
Don't know...but there is no doubt that violence in professional hockey effects other professional sports...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1905 Apr 23, 2013
Carson Hallowoy argues in The Public Discourse that "The oral arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court suggest that there is very good reason to believe that the declaration of a “right” to same-sex marriage will set us on the path to polygamy":

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions.

If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,“what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example,“with respect to the number of people ... that could get married?”

It's an 'EXCELLENT' question...for which Mr. Olsen had no good answer for...

Denial of the slippery slope is just another ssm lie...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1906 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
However, as the article points out...polygamy made no headway in the legal system before ssm, now they feel confident enough to press forward with their own agenda, since ssm has made some legal footprint for them to follow...that's the point...you all can no longer deny the slippery slope argument...
In that case, you should be complaining about interracial marriages. Our arguments have not changed from those of the Lovings.
Oh no my friend...you all do 'waaaaay' more than that...you attack, hyperventilate, foam at the mouth, etc, whenever someone brings up the correlation between allowing ssm and it leading to polygamy, incest marriages, etc...well, the prophecy is taking hold...you all can no longer deny the connection...
No foam coming from my mouth. I have never said I oppose polygamy. I have always said I oppose the unequal nature of the institution in every society that recognizes it. And you have never explained the new rules for recognizing plural marriages.
Don't know...but there is no doubt that violence in professional hockey effects other professional sports...
Just as violence in Chicago's South Side affects us all. I didn't say basketball players don't care about violence. I said it didn't make them cringe as if they were somehow responsible. Just like gays don't cringe at your message about polygamy.

You love playing this game of putting words in people's mouths, then attacking them for what you said, not what they said. We all know the game now. Your rhetorical tricks are not only exposed as juvenile, they have been completely neutered.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1907 Apr 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case, you should be complaining about interracial marriages. Our arguments have not changed from those of the Lovings.
The Lovings didn't want to marry people of their own gender...
<quoted text>
No foam coming from my mouth. I have never said I oppose polygamy. I have always said I oppose the unequal nature of the institution in every society that recognizes it. And you have never explained the new rules for recognizing plural marriages.
Who are you to inflict your 'moral' opinion on any form of marriage between consenting adults??? The rules of recognizing plural marriage??? It would be the same rules as accepting ssm....
Just as violence in Chicago's South Side affects us all. I didn't say basketball players don't care about violence. I said it didn't make them cringe as if they were somehow responsible. Just like gays don't cringe at your message about polygamy.
Accept basketball was not the gateway for hockey..otherwise maybe they would....
You love playing this game of putting words in people's mouths, then attacking them for what you said, not what they said. We all know the game now. Your rhetorical tricks are not only exposed as juvenile, they have been completely neutered.
Whatever, dude..just say you don't have a good response..the rest of us already know...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1908 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Who are you to inflict your 'moral' opinion on any form of marriage between consenting adults???
What moral opinion did I express? I merely express that society should not reinforce inherently unequal relationships between people, however willingly entered. If you find someone who wants to clean your house and be your sex slave, have fun--both of you! But don't expect us to pass laws keeping your slave home.
The rules of recognizing plural marriage??? It would be the same rules as accepting ssm....
Oh my my my. You know we've been through this a thousand times. The rules for two equal partners are not the same as multiple partners. You've been asked and asked the simplest questions. And you've refused and refuse to answer--because you have no answers.

When a straight man marries two straight women, are the women married to each other?

Are they still married when the husband dies? Must they forever more date only men interested in picking up two wives at once?

Which wife gets the husband's work benefits?

Suppose one wife works and the other raises all the children. Does she get to keep them if she decides to divorce the husband?

Which wife gets spousal Social Security benefits? Which wife gets survivor benefits?

When the husband ends up incapacitated in the hospital, which wife gets to make medical decisions?

These are all questions which are already answered for same-sex couples. You refuse to even consider the answers for polygamous couples. And there's a good reason for that: It's really up to them to decide how they want to handle it. It is not up to us to make up a whole new set of rules and force them to accept.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1909 Apr 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What moral opinion did I express? I merely express that

--society should not reinforce inherently unequal relationships between people, however willingly entered.-----

If you find someone who wants to clean your house and be your sex slave, have fun--both of you! But don't expect us to pass laws keeping your slave home.
'That' moral opinion... You have no problem with someone becoming someone else's sex slave (by definition 'unequal') willingly...but entering into a marriage willingly you call 'unequal' and you have a problem with...you are backwards..(no pun intended)
Oh my my my. You know we've been through this a thousand times. The rules for two equal partners are not the same as multiple partners.
and a man/woman is not the same as two men or two women...yet we've seem to work that out somehow...
You've been asked and asked the simplest questions. And you've refused and refuse to answer--because you have no answers.
When a straight man marries two straight women, are the women married to each other?
You are asking me a legal question...I'm not a lawyer! I don't know how they will work this out, but they are currently on their way to working something out as polygamy is now entering the federal courts....
Are they still married when the husband dies? Must they forever more date only men interested in picking up two wives at once?
If they have a marriage license...they are married...what don't you get???
Which wife gets the husband's work benefits?
Who knows??? Not a lawyer...
Suppose one wife works and the other raises all the children. Does she get to keep them if she decides to divorce the husband?
Don't know...will all have to be worked out...it's not impossible though...and this answer applies to all your questions...

Polygamy is becoming the new ssm....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1910 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't come up with anything better than that?? Really???
....
Nope, not until you answer the simple question:

Did you marry an "ex-gay" man?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1911 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
'That' moral opinion... You have no problem with someone becoming someone else's sex slave (by definition 'unequal') willingly...but entering into a marriage willingly you call 'unequal' and you have a problem with...you are backwards..(no pun intended)
<quoted text>
You pretend that you didn't understand. I don't believe you can actually be as stupid as you pretend. If you are, I suspect it must hurt.

People enter unequal relationships all the time. One could reasonably argue that traditional marriages are unequal as each participant obtains certain demands and makes certain concessions. The law does not, however, codify those mutual accommodations.

You are free to have as many sister wives as you wish. But the law doesn't cover how that relationship work. It doesn't prescribe the rights and responsibilities that come with being a sister wife. It doesn't say whether you have veto power over more sister wives, whether it is a democratic decision, or whether the husband and the new wife decide without regard to your feelings.

You are also free to have a sex slave. But the law allows him to leave whenever he tires of it.
and a man/woman is not the same as two men or two women...yet we've seem to work that out somehow...

That is because men and women who participate in matrimony are treated the same under the law.
You are asking me a legal question...I'm not a lawyer! I don't know how they will work this out, but they are currently on their way to working something out as polygamy is now entering the federal courts....

You've just hit on the difference between polygamy and same-sex marriage: Nobody has the answers to these questions. They need to be worked out. We already know all the answers to same-sex marriages: Laws work exactly the same way they work for opposite-sex marriages.
If they have a marriage license...they are married...what don't you get???
But many others have provided different answers. So if these sister wives wished to have another husband in their lives, would you recommend that they first divorce? Or is their commitment just as life-long as to their husband? Should they seek a husband who is ready to take both of them on?
Who knows??? Not a lawyer...
<quoted text>
Don't know...will all have to be worked out...it's not impossible though...and this answer applies to all your questions...
Polygamy is becoming the new ssm....
That's right. You don't know. Polygamy brings up a whole trainload of issues that you don't know the answer to.

So since you don't know, why don't you just keep quiet and learn?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1912 Apr 23, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not until you answer the simple question:
Did you marry an "ex-gay" man?
"Simple" being the operative word...I'm not bound to answer your inappropriate silly questions...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1913 Apr 23, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
"Simple" being the operative word...I'm not bound to answer your inappropriate silly questions...
That's okay, we all know your secret now, which explains your anti-gay bias.

Next time I'd suggest you marry an actual heterosexual, instead of a pretend one.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 3 min Wilbur 55,860
Chattanooga voters repeal civil rights for LGBT... 8 min Michael 65
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 12 min Reverend Alan 526
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 26 min Pietro Armando 737
'Don't Say Gay' bill clears TN Senate (May '11) 33 min truthandfact 76
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 34 min Cali Girl 2014 49,800
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 36 min Hue 1,336
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 376
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Kawalski 3,289
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••