Why Gay Marriage Matters

Oct 4, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

On one aspect of whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry, both sides agree: The issue defines what kind of nation we are.

Comments
41 - 60 of 196 Comments Last updated Oct 24, 2012
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#46 Oct 10, 2012
AscendedFalmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand the purpose of forums, then. This is for legitimate discussion. Not jokes.
lighten up francis...

I was making my point in a silly way...and the point was that the tangent itself was silly...

that animals do it is a silly line of thought...

How about topic related jokes:
like
the only place separate but equal should be the rule is with eyebrows?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#47 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, how about you take a turn and support yourself, why won;t you?
I am making supported argum,ents, and you are denying they exist, FYI, that snot debating its merely you being delusional...
please tell me what Baker means...
SUPPORT YOURSELF....
is that too much to ask? apparently yes, and I know why...
so your posts will now focus on me, and not what I am saying, I know why you will do that too.
Oooooh, you know EVERYTHING........

Oh wait, that's right, you DON'T know ANYTHING, which is why all you can do is cut & paste.

Okay, so you DO know one thing, how to cut & paste. But then so does my daughter, and she at least knows not to eat the paste!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#48 Oct 10, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooooh, you know EVERYTHING........
Oh wait, that's right, you DON'T know ANYTHING, which is why all you can do is cut & paste.
Okay, so you DO know one thing, how to cut & paste. But then so does my daughter, and she at least knows not to eat the paste!
It makes me laugh how much you guys want to ignore 100 years of constitutional law, but I guess that what you have to do to be able to say what you say...

I do not think I know everything, or am better than anyone, but I also wont ignore what our scotus says when discussing con-law...

I am focused on what the court said and you re all focused on me...
you do see that right?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#49 Oct 10, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooooh, you know EVERYTHING........
Oh wait, that's right, you DON'T know ANYTHING, which is why all you can do is cut & paste.
Okay, so you DO know one thing, how to cut & paste. But then so does my daughter, and she at least knows not to eat the paste!
also, does this post seem mature to you?

I mean, you even started out with the "Ooooooh".

We both know you are better than that...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#50 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes me laugh how much you guys want to ignore 100 years of constitutional law, but I guess that what you have to do to be able to say what you say...
I do not think I know everything, or am better than anyone, but I also wont ignore what our scotus says when discussing con-law...
I am focused on what the court said and you re all focused on me...
you do see that right?
Nope, we're all focused on what the courts have said, just not YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the courts have said.

YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the courts have said.

YOUR INTERPRETATION.......

Now go ahead and cut & paste something you THINK proves your point. Remember, just don't eat the paste.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#51 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
also, does this post seem mature to you?
I mean, you even started out with the "Ooooooh".
We both know you are better than that...
Ooooooh, so now you think I'm not mature?

Do you have a cut & paste court opinion to back that up with??

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#52 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how about the fact that we all already agreed that animals do it is a silly tangent?
Lacez doesnt respond to what is written to her, she just goes off...
she OFTEN attributed things to me I never said and repeats her same tripe over and over and fights with me all the while I try to explain I NEVER SAID what she claims...
ITS A WASTE OF TIME...(it looks like you want to go that route too?)
So i told her to stop pretending she was speaking to me (as I had already admitted that particular post was a silly JOKE!!!!)
And watch, I'll do it again, Dogs eat their own crap...bon appetite....
actually, there are only two known animals, however, that will actually urinate in their own water dish and then turn right around and drink from it. one is the chicken, and the other is the human.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#53 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how about the fact that we all already agreed that animals do it is a silly tangent?
Lacez doesnt respond to what is written to her, she just goes off...
she OFTEN attributed things to me I never said and repeats her same tripe over and over and fights with me all the while I try to explain I NEVER SAID what she claims...
ITS A WASTE OF TIME...(it looks like you want to go that route too?)
So i told her to stop pretending she was speaking to me (as I had already admitted that particular post was a silly JOKE!!!!)
And watch, I'll do it again, Dogs eat their own crap...bon appetite....
and humans shoot up heroine ... bon appetite ...

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#54 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how about the fact that we all already agreed that animals do it is a silly tangent?
Lacez doesnt respond to what is written to her, she just goes off...
she OFTEN attributed things to me I never said and repeats her same tripe over and over and fights with me all the while I try to explain I NEVER SAID what she claims...
ITS A WASTE OF TIME...(it looks like you want to go that route too?)
So i told her to stop pretending she was speaking to me (as I had already admitted that particular post was a silly JOKE!!!!)
And watch, I'll do it again, Dogs eat their own crap...bon appetite....
Why do you keep referring to me as a female?
Your observational skills are very poor, even nonexistent.
I've mentioned several times that I am gay and have a boyfriend. This would not make sense if I were female.

More on the topic of your rant, as others here have said, I bring facts and logic to the table. You bring piles of opinion and ignorance of the truth.
You stated (I may add, in a non-joking way) that homosexuality is not normal. I brought facts that prove why homosexuality is normal. You did not rebuke my comments, but instead tried to ignore them and said that I was being stupid (in short).

Now, looking at the fact that I brought information to this discussion and you brought wild claims that are far from the truth, who is the stupid one? On top of that, refusing to reply, then calling the facts stupid is quite an immature and idiotic course of action to take. This simply makes you look like even more of a fool.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#55 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes me laugh how much you guys want to ignore 100 years of constitutional law, but I guess that what you have to do to be able to say what you say...
...
There is 100 years of constitutional law against same sex marriage?

Really?

For ANY law to exist, there must be a rational state interest in that law. There is NO rational state interest in ensure that the families of gay folks are less secure than the families of straight folks.

Unless you - alone out of the entire human species - have finally come up with one.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#56 Oct 11, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
There is 100 years of constitutional law against same sex marriage?
Really?
For ANY law to exist, there must be a rational state interest in that law. There is NO rational state interest in ensure that the families of gay folks are less secure than the families of straight folks.
Unless you - alone out of the entire human species - have finally come up with one.
so you just declare rather than looking what that law is?

typical.

you guys use your ignorance as a weapon..
start with Baker v Nelson, and lets skip where you say its not a US SUPREME court case...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#57 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, we're all focused on what the courts have said, just not YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the courts have said.
YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the courts have said.
YOUR INTERPRETATION.......
Now go ahead and cut & paste something you THINK proves your point. Remember, just don't eat the paste.
its funny you think supporting your position with quotes from the court is a weakness...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#58 Oct 11, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep referring to me as a female?
Your observational skills are very poor, even nonexistent.
I've mentioned several times that I am gay and have a boyfriend. This would not make sense if I were female.
More on the topic of your rant, as others here have said, I bring facts and logic to the table. You bring piles of opinion and ignorance of the truth.
You stated (I may add, in a non-joking way) that homosexuality is not normal. I brought facts that prove why homosexuality is normal. You did not rebuke my comments, but instead tried to ignore them and said that I was being stupid (in short).
Now, looking at the fact that I brought information to this discussion and you brought wild claims that are far from the truth, who is the stupid one? On top of that, refusing to reply, then calling the facts stupid is quite an immature and idiotic course of action to take. This simply makes you look like even more of a fool.
why do you keep pretending you are talking to me?

I made a joke about using ANIMALS as EXAMPLES...
its a stupid tack.

How about you just badger me for being religious AGAIN...
but I will not pretend you are speaking to anything I have said...(except the tenth post now on a STUPID JOKE that was on a valueless tangent...)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#59 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooooooh, so now you think I'm not mature?
you must be proud of this one.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#60 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its funny you think supporting your position with quotes from the court is a weakness...
You'd first have to use a quote which ACTUALLY supports your position.

You don't.

It would be like me quoting the Brown v Board of Education decision to support my position that aliens have visited the earth.

Just because you THINK it supports your position doesn't mean it actually does.

That's just YOUR INTERPRETATION of it.

Unless you're the Attorney General of the United States, then your interpretation of any court opinion is meaningless. The AG will instruct the various federal agencies how to comply with any court opinion overturning DOMA.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#61 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd first have to use a quote which ACTUALLY supports your position.
You don't.
It would be like me quoting the Brown v Board of Education decision to support my position that aliens have visited the earth.
Just because you THINK it supports your position doesn't mean it actually does.
That's just YOUR INTERPRETATION of it.
Unless you're the Attorney General of the United States, then your interpretation of any court opinion is meaningless. The AG will instruct the various federal agencies how to comply with any court opinion overturning DOMA.
lots about me, nothing to support yourself that my interpretations of my quotes are not correct (they are), or anything of real substance, this is becoming a pattern with you...

so say it, do you think using language from the courts themselves is less valuable than not using them?

If you want to raise a specific issue that you think I am incorrectly interpreting how about you raise it so i can show your where there is consensus in the legal community...

like Baker is a SCOTUS case that says procreation is the basis for marriage rights...
do you dispute this, and if so, how about you post any other intelligent person claiming this is not true?


Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007
Persons Digests v1.0

Page No. 16
Baker v. Nelson
1971, Peterson, J.
Facts
:
Petitioners, both adult male persons,made application to respondent,Gerald R. Nelson, a clerk of the District Court, for a marriage license.Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments toa heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.
Issue
:
WON two persons of the same sex may marry.
Held/Ratio
:
No. The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Get that judicial activism tag line?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#62 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
lots about me, nothing to support yourself that my interpretations of my quotes are not correct (they are), or anything of real substance, this is becoming a pattern with you...
so say it, do you think using language from the courts themselves is less valuable than not using them?
If you want to raise a specific issue that you think I am incorrectly interpreting how about you raise it so i can show your where there is consensus in the legal community...
like Baker is a SCOTUS case that says procreation is the basis for marriage rights...
do you dispute this, and if so, how about you post any other intelligent person claiming this is not true?
Mars Veloso 1C, 2006-2007
Persons Digests v1.0
Page No. 16
Baker v. Nelson
1971, Peterson, J.
Facts
:
Petitioners, both adult male persons,made application to respondent,Gerald R. Nelson, a clerk of the District Court, for a marriage license.Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments toa heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.
Issue
:
WON two persons of the same sex may marry.
Held/Ratio
:
No. The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.
Get that judicial activism tag line?
Spin baby spin.........

Show me ANYWHERE in those decisions where it states what you claim-

"procreation is the basis for marriage rights".

I want to see THOSE EXACT WORDS IN THAT EXACT ORDER IN THAT EXACT CONTEXT.

Anything less than that is simply YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the court wrote.

YOUR INTERPRETATION, which is meaningless.

Now paste away.......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#63 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
so say it, do you think using language from the courts themselves is less valuable than not using them?
"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place."
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
So that quote proves aliens once visited the earth and humans are the result of those aliens having sex with early apes........
???
But I PROVED it with a cut & paste quote. That's what that quote ACTUALLY says, REALLY REALLY REALLY it does!!! I'll just keep posting it over & over & over until you believe it too. I'll stomp my feet and hold my breath until you believe........
Any more questions?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#64 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Spin baby spin.........
Show me ANYWHERE in those decisions where it states what you claim-
"procreation is the basis for marriage rights".
I want to see THOSE EXACT WORDS IN THAT EXACT ORDER IN THAT EXACT CONTEXT.
Anything less than that is simply YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the court wrote.
YOUR INTERPRETATION, which is meaningless.
Now paste away.......
so unless the decision says those exact words, thats your stance?
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." is not enough?

yup, you are delusional.

can you find ANY OTHER support for this position?
I can find TONS for mine, what do you make of that?

And in Zablocki, the right to procreate implying a right to marriage, still no good huh?
purposeful ignorance is all your are displaying...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#66 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so unless the decision says those exact words, thats your stance?
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." is not enough?
yup, you are delusional.
can you find ANY OTHER support for this position?
I can find TONS for mine, what do you make of that?
And in Zablocki, the right to procreate implying a right to marriage, still no good huh?
purposeful ignorance is all your are displaying...
You only THINK you have "tons" for your position.

SHOW ME THE EXACT WORDS!!!!!

What you don't understand is it doesn't matter what you think or what I think it says. It only matters what the AG thinks it says, because he will be the one instructing the various federal agencies how to implement any ruling from the SCOTUS on DOMA.

So if you want to quote someone who supposedly supports your interpretation, at least quote the AG.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 11 min Jooosh04 1,018
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 13 min Dick Topick 49,463
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 22 min anonymous 54,838
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Harvey 67,950
Chattanooga voters repeal civil rights for LGBT... 4 hr NorCal Native 43
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 4 hr Ashley1204 370
Legislature Says No to "Gay Panic" Defense 5 hr DebraE 44
Judge critical of states defending gay marriage... 7 hr Fa-Foxy 55
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 493
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••