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
121 - 140 of 524 Comments Last updated Feb 4, 2013

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Jan 16, 2013
 
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>maybe someday you christards will realize that everyone else doesn't have to follow your sky fairy, just because your to stupid to realize you were duped by the church... grow a brain and you won't have that problem, but until then stfu
That attitude is why you remain abnormal in most states.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Jan 16, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Currently we do not enjoy the equal right to marry without unwarranted governmental interference in most states or in the eyes of the federal government,
Something doesn't sound right. Are you not seeking "governmental interference" by asking the government to declare you married in the eyes of the law? Is SSM merely a creation of the state? If as an individual you possess the right to marry as it is defined by the state, how then is your claim you cannot marry, valid?
Think about what u just wrote.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
Jan 16, 2013
 
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>That attitude is why you remain abnormal in most states.
there is nothing that exists on this earth that is abnormal you moron.... abnormal is the rule in life yet you fundie tards are to stupid to see that
nobama

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
Jan 16, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd be wrong. We can and do have kids.
Wow, those lucky and very mixed up kids.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
Jan 16, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and what does she do for MOTHER'S day?
pout?
and BTW, here is that slope getting a little slicker:
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/single-amer...
"Single in America? That'll Cost You
By Beth Greenfield, Shine Staff | Financially Fit – 23 hours ago
Email
Share
Print
The calculations are scary.
What price singledom? Try a million dollars.
More on Shine: 6 Questions to Ask if You're Still Single
Yep. Beyond the indignities of bridesmaid dresses and hastily hatched setups by well-meaning married friends, it seems that being single has become a luxury. That's according to an analysis of U.S. Federal Tax Code published in the Atlantic on Monday, which finds singles are at a disadvantage, financially, over a lifetime.
"More than 1,000 laws provide overt legal or financial benefits to married couples," write story authors Lisa Arnold and Christina Campbell, whose blog Onely: Single and Happy provides "Fresh Perspectives on Living Solo."
More on Yahoo!: Gay Marriage Case: Financial Benefits at Stake
"Marital privileging marginalizes the 50 percent of Americans who are single," they continue. "The U.S. government is the main perpetrator, but private companies follow its lead. Thus marital privilege pervades nearly every facet of our lives."
For the piece, Arnold and Campbell—who describe themselves as "not callous and repressed man-haters"—conjured two single women, earning $40,000 and $80,000 a year, and two married women of equivalent means, all living in Virginia. And, after doing exhaustive calculations in areas of income taxes, social security, IRAs, housing and health spending (and taking various liberties), they came to the following conclusions: Being single cost the lower-paid woman $484,368 over a 60-year lifetime, and a whopping $1,022,096 for the higher earner.
Arnold and Campbell explain that a 2009 New York Times story inspired their own. In that piece, reporters Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber compared a hypothetical married couple to an unmarried gay couple, finding a significant lifetime cost of being gay:$41,196 at best and $467,562 at worst. They pointed out that the discrepancy was an argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage.
"But in fact, legalizing gay marriage only solves the problem for a few," Arnold and Campbell write. "Many more single people (gay and straight)—more than half of the population—continue to suffer from institutionalized singlism, the discrimination of individuals based on marital status."
Though they expect that their calculations will be the target of criticism—and they have been, looking at the nearly 200 online story comments—the writers say their estimates were "conservative," and that they can come to only one conclusion: "Singles get screwed." "
this is your logic and negation of what marriage is all about taken to its logical next step...
we have lost the forest for the trees...
the very reason we want married people to get more money is simple and its one you deny exists....
The obvious difference is if they simply CHOOSE to be single, or are they single because they are denied the right to marry.

If people (gay or straight) choose to remain single, that's their choice.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nobama wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, those lucky and very mixed up kids.
Yep, my daughter feels very lucky to have 2 parents who love her, while most of her "mixed up" schoolmates only have 1 parent in their life.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Jan 16, 2013
 
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>You can't change the rule by using rare exceptions. I know it's the normal liberal ploy, but 2% of the population is not the norm.
Actually we ARE changing the rules, which is how we're getting legally married in 9 states with more to come in 2013. We've also overturned nearly every law banning gays from adopting.

We CAN change the rules.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Jan 16, 2013
 
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Because they have a different point of view does not make them bigots. To call them such give the impression you care little about free speech, but hey, your a liberal and free speech is only if we agree with you and your hey boy in the White House.
No, having a different point of view does not make them bigots.

Having a bigoted point of view makes them bigots.

Ta-da!

Oh and "free speech" is in no way in conflict with calling people bigots.

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Jan 16, 2013
 
nobama wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Getting married is all about religion. It involves a man and a women.
Gays should have a right to bond, but not marry.
So atheists can't get married?

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Jan 16, 2013
 
CA Catholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought you libs were soooo nonjudgemental.
So why can't a person marry a goat? Are you saying people can only marry other people? Why not animals? Are you judging someone's right to choice?
You libs snuff out the lives of the unborn without the blink of an eye....and you presume to judge love?
Not very liberal is it?
Hypocrite.
You really need to be told why people can't marry animals?

Can we get a serious person to debate in here please?

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Jan 16, 2013
 
CA Catholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Major denial...homosexual marriage is still disdained by decent people. Most people would accept civil unions, but the homosexual lobby had no interest in compromise. Reasonable people try to compromise, the homosexual lobby, affluent and acid-tongued, is far from reasonable.
Which of your rights are you willing to compromise?

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Jan 16, 2013
 
CA Catholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Major denial...homosexual marriage is still disdained by decent people. Most people would accept civil unions, but the homosexual lobby had no interest in compromise. Reasonable people try to compromise, the homosexual lobby, affluent and acid-tongued, is far from reasonable.
I hope you don't think you are "decent people." We can all read your other posts, you know.

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Jan 16, 2013
 
au contraire wrote:
FLASH: THIS JUST IN.......AS OBAMA GOES TO THE PHOTO OP PLOY ONCE MORE AND SURROUNDS HIMSELF WITH children, and men packing guns, it must be observed that there a many such photo ops on the web with exactly the same setting........only it was Hitler.
(yawn)

*weak*

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Jan 16, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
just NEVER together as a MARRIED couple, right?
so you would always need a THIRD PARTY to do so correct?
its a rational distinction....
you are more like polygamy in this way than marriages we recognize...
What's the difference if they use a third party or not?

Don't millions of heterosexual couples adopt, use sperm donors, surrogate mothers, etc?

Do you treat them as any less of a family or any less of a parent?

Duh.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Jan 16, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Father and grandfather? I was referring to this movement to make everything in society, including marriage, "equal" with no distinction for gender. Thus "Mother's Day", and "Father's Day", should be eliminate, "equality" demands it.
LOL!!!

WOW, you are stupid!!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Jan 16, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
the moral difference would be gays choice to have a child while PLANNING in advance to deny that child either a Mom or a Dad...
Yeah, that's really no difference.

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Jan 16, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
and what does she do for MOTHER'S day?
pout?
Thank her lucky stars she had two good parents to raise her?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Jan 16, 2013
 
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>You can't change the rule by using rare exceptions. I know it's the normal liberal ploy, but 2% of the population is not the norm.
You're missing the point (I'm not surprised.)

You can't treat comparable couples differently just because one is male+female and the other is same gender.

If your argument is "gay people can't have children" then that argument is negated by the fact that straight people who can't (or don't) have children are treated equally to straight people who do have children.

Senior citizens have no hope of ever having children, either. Their marriages are not questioned.

No heterosexuals are required to have children.

Marriage is not required to have children.

The inconsistencies in your argument invalidates it.

The "exception" that we can't have is discrimination against only same-sex couples for not having children, while not discriminating against opposite sex couples who can't/won't have children.

Further, we can't have discrimination against only children of gay parents (which will always exist regardless of legal marriage recognition) while not discriminating against children of opposite-sex couples.

This is America. Get used to it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Jan 16, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we ARE changing the rules, which is how we're getting legally married in 9 states with more to come in 2013. We've also overturned nearly every law banning gays from adopting.
We CAN change the rules.
At what point does "changing the rules" render the rules pointless?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Jan 16, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Something doesn't sound right. Are you not seeking "governmental interference" by asking the government to declare you married in the eyes of the law? Is SSM merely a creation of the state? If as an individual you possess the right to marry as it is defined by the state, how then is your claim you cannot marry, valid?
Think about what u just wrote.
No. Our church married us. All heterosexual marriages performed by the very same Reverend are legally recognized without question. Ours (in most states) is not.

I don't mind "governmental interference" if that's what you call correcting bad law. Did we call it governmental interference when interracial marriages were set right?

Your arguments are silly. There is only one correct and acceptable solution here and that is equal opportunity for all. There is no valid justification for any other answer.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

47 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 5 min Rose_NoHo 492
Boss thought confused students would think of g... 10 min Rainbow Kid 16
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 13 min Frankie Rizzo 2,897
Stay sought in ruling on Va. gay-marriage ban 21 min Rainbow Kid 2
Agenda: How the far left uses homosexuality to ... 30 min Phyllis Schlafly s Stain 43
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 41 min Wondering 53,074
Biggest Gay Lies 44 min Frankie Rizzo 1,274
Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children 1 hr WasteWater 201
•••
•••