Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island

Jan 15, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: New York Daily News

Supporters of same-sex marriage rights plan to assemble at the Rhode Island Statehouse to urge lawmakers to make the smallest state the 10th to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed - and the last to do so in New England.

Comments (Page 18)

Showing posts 341 - 360 of524
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#347
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
.....nor number of participants, pre existing relationship, etc. At what point is there no point and thus no need for state recognition and/or regulation.
<quoted text>
The mere recognition of marriage is discriminatory......certainly against single people.
<quoted text>
Exactly
When society decides there is no longer any need for state recognition and/or regulation of marriage, then there will no longer be state recognition and/or regulation of marriage.

Again, it's up to society to decide.

Nope, single people aren't banned from getting married just because they're single. And if they do choose to marry, their marriage isn't treated any differently than any other marriage just because they were single. Therefor marriage laws giving specific rights/benefits to married couples but not to single people meets the constitutional standards of equal protection.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#348
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
When society decides there is no longer any need for state recognition and/or regulation of marriage, then there will no longer be state recognition and/or regulation of marriage.
Again, it's up to society to decide.
Nope, single people aren't banned from getting married just because they're single. And if they do choose to marry, their marriage isn't treated any differently than any other marriage just because they were single. Therefor marriage laws giving specific rights/benefits to married couples but not to single people meets the constitutional standards of equal protection.
Nor are self described gay people banned from getting married. Their sexual orientation does not prohibit them from doing so. A man can accept a woman as his lawfully wedded wife, just as a woman can accept a man as her lawfully wedded husband. Every year millions of people regardless of "orientation", marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. They say "I love you", to their respective husband or wife, consumate their marriage, engage in "marital relations", and some even beget children. So you're right single people can marry if they want to.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#349
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor are self described gay people banned from getting married. Their sexual orientation does not prohibit them from doing so. A man can accept a woman as his lawfully wedded wife, just as a woman can accept a man as her lawfully wedded husband. Every year millions of people regardless of "orientation", marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. They say "I love you", to their respective husband or wife, consumate their marriage, engage in "marital relations", and some even beget children. So you're right single people can marry if they want to.
Yes, single people can marry if they want to, to whichever gender they choose. The obvious difference from an equal protection standpoint is the single person who marries someone of the same gender is NOT currently treated the same as a single person who marries someone of the opposite gender, based solely on the gender of the person they are marrying.

So we currently have one group of legally married couples being treated differently than another group of legally married couples solely on the basis of their genders.

That does NOT meet the constitutional standards of equal protection.

In addition, a single male is able to marry a single female in every state, while a single male is NOT able to marry another single male in every state, again based solely on the gender of their partner; same applies to a single female desiring to marry another single female.

So again we have one group of single men or single women not being able to marry the person of their choosing based solely on the gender of that person, even though they meet all other requirements for marriage.

That does not meet the constitutional standards of equal protection either, which is why 4 state Supreme Courts have ruled same-sex couples DO have the right to marry. Granted, that consitutional principle hasn't been applied on a federal level yet, which leads right back to the previous equal protection violations for legally married same-sex couples.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#350
Jan 22, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Spouses should treat each other with love & respect. How hard is that to teach regardless of your gender?
Not hard at all.....it's the golden rule
The only reason gender would come into it is if you believe there are specific roles for certain genders in a relationship- i.e. women have to cook, clean, do laundry etc, while men have to work outside the home and expect dinner on the table waiting for them when they get home.
WAIT....I KNOW THIS ONE.....how about "motherhood", "fatherhood", "menstrual cycles", "pregnancy"....... I'm sure there's more. Now when you got your first period, did you seek out your mother, or father? My daughters sought out my wife, not me.

[QUOTE[
If you can't be a complete role model for your child and teach them how to treat & respect another person in a relationship, then YOU are the problem- not your gender.[/QUOTE]

Well Sheeple, its a two gendered world. Even you, are the product of a man and a woman's sexual union. Did you honestly think the only gendered difference between your Mom and Dad was their plumbing?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#351
Jan 22, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not hard at all.....it's the golden rule
<quoted text>
WAIT....I KNOW THIS ONE.....how about "motherhood", "fatherhood", "menstrual cycles", "pregnancy"....... I'm sure there's more. Now when you got your first period, did you seek out your mother, or father? My daughters sought out my wife, not me.
<quoted text>
Well Sheeple, its a two gendered world. Even you, are the product of a man and a woman's sexual union. Did you honestly think the only gendered difference between your Mom and Dad was their plumbing?
Yes, the only difference between genders is their "plumbing" as a result of one being XX and the other XY.

Anything beyonod that is simply artifically imposed societal roles.

Nothing prevents a father from educating his daughter about her menstrual cycles or pregnancy, or a mother from educating her son about erections or pregnancy.

If you're unable to provide adequate parenting to BOTH genders of children, then you probably should reconsider having kids.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#352
Jan 22, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the only difference between genders is their "plumbing" as a result of one being XX and the other XY.
Anything beyonod that is simply artifically imposed societal roles.
Nothing prevents a father from educating his daughter about her menstrual cycles or pregnancy, or a mother from educating her son about erections or pregnancy.
If you're unable to provide adequate parenting to BOTH genders of children, then you probably should reconsider having kids.
Absolutely.

And lets be honest. Many parents choose to avoid ALL such conversations with their children - we all knew/know kids whose parents believed that if they never mentioned such things, that their children wouldn't experiment.

And yet, THOSE parents were likely to be legally married. Imagine that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#354
Jan 22, 2013
 
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really so ignorant that you 'absolutely' think the only different between the genders is plumbing?
Which didn't you need, a mother or a father? Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
I didn't need either a mother or a father; I just needed to parents who loved me regardless of their gender.

Btw, has the judge lifted the restraining on you keeping you from having sex with your own kids David? Obviously YOUR kids didn't need a "father"; at least not one like you!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#355
Jan 22, 2013
 
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really so ignorant that you 'absolutely' think the only different between the genders is plumbing?
Which didn't you need, a mother or a father? Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
Welcome to the discussion Greg, and thanks for that insightful post, and injection of sanity into the debate. Rainbow coalition, I believe a response is in order.

Now that its mentioned, there are differences between male and female SSCs as it relates to SSM. More female SSCs marry than make, and the former tend to be more monogamous than the latter. So are those differences "artificially" imposed?

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#356
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Civil rights should not be voted on by citizens.....Civil rights should be for all people...EVEN SAME SEX PEOPLE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#357
Jan 22, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome to the discussion Greg, and thanks for that insightful post, and injection of sanity into the debate. Rainbow coalition, I believe a response is in order.
Now that its mentioned, there are differences between male and female SSCs as it relates to SSM. More female SSCs marry than make, and the former tend to be more monogamous than the latter. So are those differences "artificially" imposed?
Ummm, just so you know, "Greg" is one of the resident trolls who is actually David Moore from Pekin Illinois. He was previously "married" to a woman, but she divorced him when she found out he was trying to have sex with his own kids. The judge issued a restraining order preventing him any contact with his own kids. All this info was on his facebook page before he took it down after he accidentally identified himself in a post.

Just so you know who you're agreeing with........

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#358
Jan 22, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Now that its mentioned, there are differences between male and female SSCs as it relates to SSM. More female SSCs marry than make, and the former tend to be more monogamous than the latter. So are those differences "artificially" imposed?
While the numbers on same-sex couples can be verified, there is no evidence married male couples are any less monogamous than married female couples. Even IF you could prove that, you'd have to prove it was because of their gender for it to be meaningful.

Just like the recent "study" which showed those who slept more than 9 hours were statistically more likely to die at a younger age than those who slept less than 9 hours. So sleeping too much causes an early death, right? Of course not; it turns out those who slept more than 9 hours were more likely to have an underlying illness which cause them to be more tired and sleep longer.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#359
Jan 22, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, just so you know, "Greg" is one of the resident trolls who is actually David Moore from Pekin Illinois. He was previously "married" to a woman, but she divorced him when she found out he was trying to have sex with his own kids. The judge issued a restraining order preventing him any contact with his own kids. All this info was on his facebook page before he took it down after he accidentally identified himself in a post.
Just so you know who you're agreeing with........
I see.....okay...but it doesn't necessarily detract from the message.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#360
Jan 22, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
While the numbers on same-sex couples can be verified, there is no evidence married male couples are any less monogamous than married female couples. Even IF you could prove that, you'd have to prove it was because of their gender for it to be meaningful.
C'mon Sheepie.....its true that more female couples marry than male. Your thoughts as to why? Perhaps because, marriage, even gay marriage, is still far important to the female of the human species than male. Monogamy, or lack thereof among male couples...even Andrew Sullivan admited this to be true...and again...why wouldn't it be? Men are men...besides gay men don't have to worry about pregnancy...not unless there's been a break through in the human reproductive process.
gossamer

Warren, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#361
Jan 22, 2013
 
Legalize gay marriage.

Rosie and whatever her name is got them a baby. I hope someday that baby sues the hell out of them and the state for forcing their gay life style on it. Provding it thinks it has to be gay and lives its life as a closet staright.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#362
Jan 22, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Yes, the only difference between genders is their "plumbing" as a result of one being XX and the other XY.
Anything beyonod that is simply artifically imposed societal roles.
Nothing prevents a father from educating his daughter about her menstrual cycles or pregnancy, or a mother from educating her son about erections or pregnancy.
A father can "educate" his daughter about her menstrual cycle all he wants, it may help if he is a health ed teacher, or a gynacologist, however he does not have the experiencial knowledge. Nor does a woman regarding an errection. My daughters did not want to discuss "feminine" issue with me, their dad, they want Mom.
If you're unable to provide adequate parenting to BOTH genders of children, then you probably should reconsider having kids.
If you're unable to provide BOTH genders of parents, the biological mother and father to the children, and the gendered experiences they possess, the you should probably reconsider having kids.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#363
Jan 22, 2013
 
ToManyLaws wrote:
Civil rights should not be voted on by citizens.....Civil rights should be for all people...EVEN SAME SEX PEOPLE.
Hey TML

"SAME SEX PEOPLE"? Huh...

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#364
Jan 22, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey TML
"SAME SEX PEOPLE"? Huh...
Yea you know people who are gay or lesbian should have equal rights also...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#365
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, single people can marry if they want to, to whichever gender they choose.
That depends on how marriage is defined. A single person cannot legally marry some one of the same sex, if marriage is legally defined as an opposite sex union.
The obvious difference from an equal protection standpoint is the single person who marries someone of the same gender is NOT currently treated the same as a single person who marries someone of the opposite gender, based solely on the gender of the person they are marrying.
Again, that depends on how marriage is legally defined in a particular state.
So we currently have one group of legally married couples being treated differently than another group of legally married couples solely on the basis of their genders.
That assumes that the legal marriage of the same sex union in one state is viewed as a legal union in another state. That is not the case. The same sex marriage in one state is a legal non entity in another state. That does not prohibit the individuals involved in the legally recognized same sex marriage, from marrying in a non-SSM state...or does it? If a self described bisexual woman marries a woman in a SSM legal state, moves to a ssm constitutionally prohibited state, marries a man, which marriage takes precedence? The OSM, or the SSM?
That does NOT meet the constitutional standards of equal protection.
So one state can force another state to legally recognize a relationship, even though the second state's constitution does not allow for such legal recognition?
In addition, a single male is able to marry a single female in every state, while a single male is NOT able to marry another single male in every state, again based solely on the gender of their partner; same applies to a single female desiring to marry another single female.
If the legal definition of one state requires both genders are necessary for a valid marriage, then that's what the state requires.
So again we have one group of single men or single women not being able to marry the person of their choosing based solely on the gender of that person, even though they meet all other requirements for marriage.
So again, different states define legal marriage differently.
That does not meet the constitutional standards of equal protection either, which is why 4 state Supreme Courts have ruled same-sex couples DO have the right to marry.
Other state courts have ruled differently. Additionally voters in 31 states or so have constitutionally defined marriage for their state.
Granted, that consitutional principle hasn't been applied on a federal level yet, which leads right back to the previous equal protection violations for legally married same-sex couples.
In a non SSM state that marriage, legally, does not exist.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#366
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A father can "educate" his daughter about her menstrual cycle all he wants, it may help if he is a health ed teacher, or a gynacologist, however he does not have the experiencial knowledge. Nor does a woman regarding an errection. My daughters did not want to discuss "feminine" issue with me, their dad, they want Mom.
<quoted text>
If you're unable to provide BOTH genders of parents, the biological mother and father to the children, and the gendered experiences they possess, the you should probably reconsider having kids.
Then why does the State approve adoption for single parents? Probably because they know a child's welfare is more complex than the sex of who teaches them about menses.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#367
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ToManyLaws wrote:
<quoted text>Yea you know people who are gay or lesbian should have equal rights also...
TML

Different situations can be treated differently. One would not expect to find urinals in the ladies room, for the obviously reason that women don't pee standing up. If marriage laws are to be based on one's sexual orientation, its stands to reason that if one is self described as "bisexual", one should be allowed to, if s/he so chooses, marry one person of each sex.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 341 - 360 of524
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••