Pa. Sues To Stop Issuance Of Gay Marriage Licenses

There are 20 comments on the Jul 30, 2013, CBS Local story titled Pa. Sues To Stop Issuance Of Gay Marriage Licenses. In it, CBS Local reports that:

State officials in Pennsylvania are asking a court to stop a rogue county from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS Local.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#337 Aug 3, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when was something right, simply because most people believe it to be right? Most people used to think the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that blacks were inhuman. Are they right, simply because they were the majority? Your senility is showing, old goat.
And now most people think otherwise about those things. Are they still wrong?

However, most people have always thought otherwise about religion.

They've also always thought homosexuality is a sexual defect.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#338 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And now most people think otherwise about those things. Are they still wrong?
However, most people have always thought otherwise about religion.
They've also always thought homosexuality is a sexual defect.
You're not asking the critical question: Why? Why do they think differently? The answer is evidence and empirical study. Most people believe that the Earth was created by a sky daddy. The data doesn't point to that. A lot of people out there think homosexuality is a defect. The data doesn't point to that. You get it? Of course you don't. Ha.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#339 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Exaggeration ("millions and millions") exposed by the fact that 90% of married couple have children.
2. I said gay couples. Anal sex requires protection to be marginally safer. It is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. A despicable default option to intercourse.
So obviously, you were gay twirling to cover your difficult denial.
Considering there are billions of people on this planet who've had sex billions upon billions of times and not every time they have sex results in procreation proves opposite sex couples CAN and DO have sex without protection without procreating.

And you said we HAD to use protection to have sex. Simply untrue. While it may be more sanitary to use a condom during anal sex, it certainly isn't required. Millions of gay people have anal sex without protection and have no harmful effects.

Obviously you're freak twirling to attempt to cover your stupidity.

Btw, notice how you don't address the millions upon millions of opposite-sex couples who also engage in anal sex....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#340 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they clearly denied reality and precedent.
The SCOTUS isn't bound by precedent- they SET precedent, just like they did in the DOMA case.

All married couples must be treated equally by the federal govt regardless of whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex couples.

But I'm sure you'll keep crying about it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#341 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Mine says bride and groom.
They have a piece of paper.
I have a marriage.
See the difference?
And my marriage license says the same thing as every other marriage license issued by Massachusetts since 2004.

No difference.

Which is why the SCOTUS ruled that my marriage must be treated equally by the federal govt as every other marriage.

No difference.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#342 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I've noted both before.
SCOTUS rulings noting the importance of marriage as the birthplace of society.
The reunion of a man and woman in marriage reflects the very roots of earliest human existence, genderless life.
Go back in a ss couples' history, and what do you find? Immediately? A mother and father.
While at the same time marriage connects us to the past, birthing future humanity.
A ss couple? No past, and no future. A duplicate gendered half of marriage making the hilarious claim they are the same.
Nope, still wrong.

We have the same varied pasts as every other person on the planet, and we have the same varied futures as every other person on the planet.

Or are you saying an opposite-sex couple who has no genetic children who are a product of both individuals has no future?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#343 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And now most people think otherwise about those things. Are they still wrong?
However, most people have always thought otherwise about religion.
They've also always thought homosexuality is a sexual defect.
And now most people know homosexuality is normal variation of human sexuality.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#344 Aug 3, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not asking the critical question: Why? Why do they think differently? The answer is evidence and empirical study. Most people believe that the Earth was created by a sky daddy. The data doesn't point to that. A lot of people out there think homosexuality is a defect. The data doesn't point to that. You get it? Of course you don't. Ha.
I'm sorry, but the evidence does point to homosexuality being a sexual defect. Not a moral defect, a physical one. A difficult one.

More damage is being done however by your denial and the foolish attempt to impose it on everyone else.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#346 Aug 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS isn't bound by precedent- they SET precedent, just like they did in the DOMA case.
All married couples must be treated equally by the federal govt regardless of whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex couples.
But I'm sure you'll keep crying about it.
However they have no power over reality.

Ss couples are not the same as married couples.

Maybe the decision has to be unanimous???

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#347 Aug 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And my marriage license says the same thing as every other marriage license issued by Massachusetts since 2004.
No difference.
Which is why the SCOTUS ruled that my marriage must be treated equally by the federal govt as every other marriage.
No difference.
In your case, they treat two of the same gender.

In marriage, there is the union of opposite gendered couples.

Can't be treated the same. That's just a start.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#348 Aug 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, still wrong.
We have the same varied pasts as every other person on the planet, and we have the same varied futures as every other person on the planet.
Or are you saying an opposite-sex couple who has no genetic children who are a product of both individuals has no future?
First a silly stretch, then a futile attempt to let a rare exception rule the norm.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#349 Aug 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And now most people know homosexuality is normal variation of human sexuality.
No, they don't know. And it's very unlikely it will be a normal variation.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#350 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but the evidence does point to homosexuality being a sexual defect. Not a moral defect, a physical one. A difficult one.
More damage is being done however by your denial and the foolish attempt to impose it on everyone else.
It's not a defect. No evidence points to that, nor does any credible, medical institution back that. Also, homosexuality isn't being imposed on anyone. No gay guy would waste time humping that withered chrysalis you call a physique. Blacks guy get elected president, women can vote, and gays can marry. You only have a few good years left, before your brain turns to Swiss cheese completely. You're better off annoying your grand kids than pretending you're relevant.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#351 Aug 4, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a defect. No evidence points to that, nor does any credible, medical institution back that. Also, homosexuality isn't being imposed on anyone. No gay guy would waste time humping that withered chrysalis you call a physique. Blacks guy get elected president, women can vote, and gays can marry. You only have a few good years left, before your brain turns to Swiss cheese completely. You're better off annoying your grand kids than pretending you're relevant.
The very fact that gay guys must use protection to have sex is medical and scientific proof of a defect. The fact that the homosexual orientation is NOT self-replicating is scientific proof.

Moreover, for any legitimate professional organization to diagnose with incomplete information (no one knows the cause of homosexuality), only exposes their unprofessionalism.

From the APA's own site;

"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

However, there is a new study that looks very promising. Epi-markers mistakenly left leave mixed messages regarding gender. Look up Epi-genetics.

Now consider this. You focus on denial and gay troll attacks. I focus on reality and understanding. Why is that???

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#352 Aug 4, 2013
"Such epi-marks are typically accrued early in development, as cells are programmed to become specific adult cell types. But, the researchers speculate, perhaps they could be inherited from a parent. Most epigenetic modifications are erased during development of germ cells and soon after fertilization so that cell lineages can be programmed with new epigenetic modifications. But if epi-marks that direct sexual development ARE NOT ERASED CORRECTLY (emphasis added), a mother could pass down epi-marks that direct female development to her son, resulting in an attraction to men, and vice versa for a father and his daughters, the researchers theorize."

http://www.the-scientist.com/
?articles.view/articleNo/33773 /title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain -Homosexuality-/

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#354 Aug 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
A legal manipulation may happen.
That will have as much success as calling the tail on a dog a leg.
A legal manipulation will happen, it will bring about equality. When it happens I wish those making arguments against same sex marriage the same luck you have had with it, because thus far, you've yet to offer an argument with a rational basis.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#355 Aug 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
A legal manipulation will happen, it will bring about equality. When it happens I wish those making arguments against same sex marriage the same luck you have had with it, because thus far, you've yet to offer an argument with a rational basis.
Except that a duplicate gendered couple is not equal to a diverse gendered couple. Anyone with eyes can see that.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#356 Aug 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Except that a duplicate gendered couple is not equal to a diverse gendered couple. Anyone with eyes can see that.
No couple is equal, all people are singular and unique, meaning that no couple is absolutely equal. However all couples can have the same rights and protections under the law, which is what this whole discussion is about.

Theoretically your inane argument could be similarly applied to infertile couples. Do you mean to imply that an infertile heterosexual couple, not being equal to a fertile one, should not be allowed to marry? It seems your views are somewhat skewed, if not draconian.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#357 Aug 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No couple is equal, all people are singular and unique, meaning that no couple is absolutely equal. However all couples can have the same rights and protections under the law, which is what this whole discussion is about.
Theoretically your inane argument could be similarly applied to infertile couples. Do you mean to imply that an infertile heterosexual couple, not being equal to a fertile one, should not be allowed to marry? It seems your views are somewhat skewed, if not draconian.
In all of human history, across all cultures and religions, marriage has been a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. The union of a male and female that naturally unites them in body mind and spirit. A present union that reaches back to the very roots of pre-gender human existence, and at the very same time births our future.

Ss couples do none of that. A defect of mating behavior, a duplicated half, a pointless, fruitless blip in time.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#358 Aug 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
In all of human history, across all cultures and religions, marriage has been a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Of course, we are talking about the USA in the here and now, where we have guaranteed all persons (not even all citizens, but all persons) within a state's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
KiMare wrote:
The union of a male and female that naturally unites them in body mind and spirit.
No, it is a set of legal rights and protections, nothing more. You seem to be conflating civil marriage with spiritual or religious marriage, the two are not synonymous.
KiMare wrote:
A present union that reaches back to the very roots of pre-gender human existence, and at the very same time births our future.
Allowing or disallowing same sex marriage has no effect upon sustainable procreation. Actually, the argument could be made that the earth is overpopulated, and that we should discourage procreation at existing rates. What is more, homosexuals will produce no more children if married than they do single, the same is not true of heterosexual couples. At present 40% of births in this nation are to out of wedlock parents.

This is perhaps the most hare-brained argument you have presented to date.
KiMare wrote:
Ss couples do none of that. A defect of mating behavior, a duplicated half, a pointless, fruitless blip in time.
Or, a loving couple deserving of equal protection of the law.

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 Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 4 min Brian_G 1,190
News Evolving awareness is cause for same-sex-marria... 12 min Lawrence Wolf 13
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 15 min PackRat 2,055
News Majority Oppose 'Religious Freedom' Laws That C... 19 min BASTA 107
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 24 min Blackburn 32,018
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 27 min Dana Robertson 2,774
News The Latest on GOP's 2016 hopefuls: Cruz on gay ... 41 min serfs up 3
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 1 hr Fa-Foxy 48
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Rick in Kansas 19,636
Are the mods fair and balanced? 1 hr Rick in Kansas 652
More from around the web