Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rho...

Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island

There are 525 comments on the New York Daily News story from Jan 15, 2013, titled Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island. In it, New York Daily News reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New York Daily News.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#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

#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.

Lililth_Satans_B ore

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#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

#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

#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

#126 Jan 16, 2013
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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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:

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
News Why culture war issues like same-sex marriage a... 5 min Ted Haggard s Gos... 9
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 13 min June VanDerMark 11,314
News 'I apologize to the LGBT community': Texas past... 17 min pazuzu1977 11
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 26 min Rocky 15,990
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 45 min Aron 206
jade freak cafe 50 min Zamboni 4
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 hr JODECKO 73
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 1 hr Sgt Preston 26
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr lake bay boy 38,791
More from around the web