Same-sex marriage: an issue of rights?

Oct 7, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: HeraldNet

In a voice freighted with emotion, Gov. Chris Gregoire embraced gay marriage in January saying it is a civil right and denying it to same-sex couples is a vestige of discrimination that needs to be eliminated in the state and nation.

Comments
81 - 100 of 372 Comments Last updated Oct 25, 2012
Allen

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts remain if there were more people like you in the world we would be in even graver danger. Your ignorance could kill Einstein eventhough he's long gong.
Long GONG? LOL! Poor spelling...what else can you expect from a low IQ bigot?
Frank

Ann Arbor, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Oct 8, 2012
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Get those F*GGOTS off the PLANET!!!!!

Nuff said....
Old Grand Dad

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

fuckinqueers wrote:
<quoted text> true
What a piece of human shyte says! Hey moron,the vast majority of child molestations are committed by men who identify as being heterosexual! 1 out of every 5 girls are molested in their youth,I suppose gays are molesting them also? Sick lying idiot!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

9

8

8

fuckinqueers wrote:
<quoted text> true
Odd.

Your name here tells us that you are having sex with gay folks, and yet you pretend not to like them.

That would seem to show some sort of mental issues on your part.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

9

9

9

fuckinqueers wrote:
<quoted text>fuckinqueer
And here it is, again. More sex with gay folks. I'm surprised you find any that would get close enough for you to try it.
TheTroll Stopper

Christiansburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Oct 9, 2012
 
[QUOTE who="f***inqueers"][ /QUOTE]
Reported. Bye.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Qwerty26 wrote:
Let's talk about children. You say that marriage equality is sending the wrong message to "our children." Guess what? Some of those children are gay, and are hearing the message that YOU want them to hear, and it is NOT a good message for them to hear. You are hurting them, immensely. ALL children need our protection, not just the straight ones. Gay children are particularly vulnerable when they rightfully see that most of their culture condemns them, even their churches and many of their schools. They aren't old enough to even realize that it's all hooey, nor do they have access to the support structures that are available to adults. By your attitude, you are contributing to the high rate of suicide, depression, and other ills that afflict gay children inordinately.
I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Marriage defender's aren't hurting children, political radicals are the ones using sexual orientation to divide the electorate against itself. They tell gay children, anyone who believes marriage in the male/ female nature of marriage is condemning homosexuality. I can prove it's not true that protecting marriage is anti-gay, there is no law against consensual same sex relationships and Americans have freedom of association. Every gay was born of male/female union.

Same sex marriage supporters condemn gay children to depression by telling them, if marriage laws aren't rewritten for everyone, that means society is condemning homosexuality. They turn a political process into an excuse for suicide.

.
Qwerty26 wrote:
And let's talk about this ridiculous notion of "redefining marriage." That phrase is right out of NOM's playbook, which you apparently have bought into hook, line, and sinker. You are being played. We seek to ENLARGE marriage to include more people.
Same sex marriage never existed in written law before the 21st century. It does redefine marriage and rewrite law to make government blind to gender; creating unisex law. We don't want a unisex society, that doesn't mean we are anti-gay. Homosexuals make a gender preference, they don't have sex with the opposite gender because they understand gender differences and prefer sex with their own.

Gender differences are great and important to the survival of our species. We're against unisex marriage, against gender segregation marriage because we love gender diverse marriage with the perfect affirmative action ratio of one man and one woman.

.
Qwerty26 wrote:
If you consider this "redefining" marriage, then what would you call it when it became legal for people from different races to marry? That has to be "redefining marriage," too, right?
Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for marriage between man and woman. The court decided racial differences are insignificant and unimportant. Do you think they would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple?

.
Qwerty26 wrote:
How about when marriage was "redefined" to say that a woman has the same rights in marriage as the husband? Again, marriage redefined.
Do you mean consent? If you get to change the gender aspect of marriage today, what protects the consent aspect tomorrow?

.
Qwerty26 wrote:
Or when polygamy was outlawed? Marriage redefined. Maybe you consider these bad things, but the vast majority of this country would disagree with you on that, and they all represent "redefinitions" of marriage.
Marriage has always been one man and one woman in US law; when bigamy was outlawed by the US Supreme Court, it stopped polytamy in the territory of Utah. Are you recommending we outlaw same sex marriage today? I'm hoping we won't need to criminalize same sex marriage to protect male/female marriage.

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
Marriage defender's aren't hurting children, political radicals are the ones using sexual orientation to divide the electorate against itself. They tell gay children, anyone who believes marriage in the male/ female nature of marriage is condemning homosexuality. There is no law against consensual same sex relationships and Americans have freedom of association.
Same sex relationships are not illegal, but they are also not recognized by the government. While you speak aptly about the preservation of the straight relationship, that preservation should extend beyond just limiting the government recognition of a legitimate relationship to a heterosexual one. You have already expressed that you believe homosexuality to be innate, exemplified by your recognition of gay children. However, by enacting measures to prevent gays and lesbians from legally establishing their unions, you are sending the unconsious message to gay children that they are in fact, inferior.
Same sex marriage supporters condemn gay children to depression by telling them, if marriage laws aren't rewritten for everyone, that means society is condemning homosexuality.
I can tell you from experience that society IS condemning homosexuality, because the majority of the politics centers around the religious fanaticals preaching hell and brimstone, and the majority of affirmitive action measures centering around religion.
Same sex marriage never existed in written law before the 21st century. We don't want a unisex society, that doesn't mean we are anti-gay. Homosexuals make a gender preference, they don't have sex with the opposite gender because they understand gender differences and prefer sex with their own.
Gender differences are great and important to the survival of our species. We're against unisex marriage, against gender segregation marriage because we love gender diverse marriage with the perfect affirmative action ratio of one man and one woman.
.
Heterosexuals make a gender preference as well.
The ratios of straight relationships will not change if society legally recognizes gay relationships. The percentages of gay people in the population have not changed, just the perception of them. And frankly, we do not love gender diverse marriage. The divorce rate is ridiculously high.
Do you think they would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple?
Because the case did not deal with heterosexuality versus homosexuality, the case did not set precedence for marriage between man and woman. It set precedence for marriage that can exist between two people in a culture that condemned it for a specific reason. This is precedence for allowing people of differing, yet irrefutable characteristics legally recognize their union.
As far as your quip about consent, it is a pointless subject. We are talking about consenting relationships and recognition of them. Gender is the variable, consent is the constant. If/When consent becomes the variable, then we will talk.

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Are you recommending we outlaw same sex marriage today? I'm hoping we won't need to criminalize same sex marriage to protect male/female marriage.
Same sex marriage is outlawed federally and in 31 states. Too late. Furthermore, if you want to discuss legal definition of marriage, it has been changed, because marriage nowadays is not limited to landowning individuals, women are not defined as property, and divorce is typically a mutual arrangement.
Conceding the point about it always being one man/one woman is not difficult. This is true. However, marriage has not always been a federally recognized and funded contract. Remember, marriage IS a contract. In the contract, a few things must be asked.
Are both parties consenting?(Do you, a***e, take this person to be your lawfully wedded *****? Answer: I do)
Are both parties in the understanding that the contract will be upheld until there is a willful dissolving of the contract or until one party is incapable of upholding their portion?(For richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part?)
Have both parties recognized the terms of the contract?
(You may now kiss the bride, I declare you to be lawfully wedded.)
If the answer is yes, why are there gender stipulations?

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

whitefalcon1678 wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is outlawed federally and in 31 states. Too late. Furthermore, if you want to discuss legal definition of marriage, it has been changed, because marriage nowadays is not limited to landowning individuals, women are not defined as property, and divorce is typically a mutual arrangement.
Conceding the point about it always being one man/one woman is not difficult. This is true. However, marriage has not always been a federally recognized and funded contract. Remember, marriage IS a contract. In the contract, a few things must be asked.
Are both parties consenting?(Do you, a***e, take this person to be your lawfully wedded *****? Answer: I do)
Are both parties in the understanding that the contract will be upheld until there is a willful dissolving of the contract or until one party is incapable of upholding their portion?(For richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part?)
Have both parties recognized the terms of the contract?
(You may now kiss the bride, I declare you to be lawfully wedded.)
If the answer is yes, why are there gender stipulations?
Except that marriage being one man\one woman has not been the historic norm. The non-Christian Mormons were polygamous (I think there's a non-Christan Mormon whose been in the news lately now), and the Jews were always polygamous until about the 13th century AD, when they encountered European Christians who were hostile to polygamy. Any many Muslims nowadays are polygamous. So your claim that marriage has always been the one man\one woman paradigm is simply not true.

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that marriage being one man\one woman has not been the historic norm. The non-Christian Mormons were polygamous (I think there's a non-Christan Mormon whose been in the news lately now), and the Jews were always polygamous until about the 13th century AD, when they encountered European Christians who were hostile to polygamy. Any many Muslims nowadays are polygamous. So your claim that marriage has always been the one man\one woman paradigm is simply not true.
I am not claiming that. I am claiming that in the United States, which has only existed for about 300 years, that is true, by LEGAL definition. Historically, I am aware that marriage has included polygamous and homosexual unions. Please read my entire post, which is in two parts.
LION

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Gays have a right to do what they want to do.
LION

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

BLACKS

need to support their black owned banks and black owned credit unions.

need to form small investment groups.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Marriage defender's aren't hurting children, political radicals are the ones using sexual orientation to divide the electorate against itself. They tell gay children, anyone who believes marriage in the male/ female nature of marriage is condemning homosexuality. I can prove it's not true that protecting marriage is anti-gay, there is no law against consensual same sex relationships and Americans have freedom of association. Every gay was born of male/female union.
Same sex marriage supporters condemn gay children to depression by telling them, if marriage laws aren't rewritten for everyone, that means society is condemning homosexuality. They turn a political process into an excuse for suicide.
.
<quoted text>Same sex marriage never existed in written law before the 21st century. It does redefine marriage and rewrite law to make government blind to gender; creating unisex law. We don't want a unisex society, that doesn't mean we are anti-gay. Homosexuals make a gender preference, they don't have sex with the opposite gender because they understand gender differences and prefer sex with their own.
Gender differences are great and important to the survival of our species. We're against unisex marriage, against gender segregation marriage because we love gender diverse marriage with the perfect affirmative action ratio of one man and one woman.
.
<quoted text>Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for marriage between man and woman. The court decided racial differences are insignificant and unimportant. Do you think they would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple?
.
<quoted text>Do you mean consent? If you get to change the gender aspect of marriage today, what protects the consent aspect tomorrow?
.
<quoted text>Marriage has always been one man and one woman in US law; when bigamy was outlawed by the US Supreme Court, it stopped polytamy in the territory of Utah. Are you recommending we outlaw same sex marriage today? I'm hoping we won't need to criminalize same sex marriage to protect male/female marriage.
You've gotten more eloquent, but your position still boils down to nothing but, "We don't want you to."
The Worlds Biggest Lie

Springfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

LION wrote:
Gays have a right to do what they want to do.
Not in a schoolyard, classroom, or in the Boy Scouts lumpy.
Allen

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frank wrote:
Get those F*GGOTS off the PLANET!!!!!
Nuff said....
And send the low IQ black jungle monkeys back to Africa.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Allen wrote:
<quoted text>And send the low IQ black jungle monkeys back to Africa.
What about the low IQ WHITE jungle monkeys such as yourself?

Where should we send YOU?

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the low IQ WHITE jungle monkeys such as yourself?
Where should we send YOU?
Jersey

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wallace wrote:
<quoted text>Your post is the very reason we should keep queers away from kids!!!
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Oct 9, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Allen wrote:
<quoted text>And send the low IQ black jungle monkeys back to Africa.
Why do racists call black people monkeys?
Monkeys have light skin, straight hair, thin lips and flat butts.

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.

•••
•••