Should same-sex marriage become legal?

Should same-sex marriage become legal?

There are 15314 comments on the MLive.com story from Sep 25, 2011, titled Should same-sex marriage become legal?. In it, MLive.com reports that:

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of same-sex couples in the United States increased by more than 20 percent, according to the Williams Institute, a think tank concerned with laws and public policy related to sexual orientation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at MLive.com.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16945 Mar 2, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor little lost junkyard doggie, no one will play with you.
That's sad.
Robert
Aw, you're sad? Hope this helps you feel a little better-

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#16946 Mar 5, 2013
Yes
Flashopia

Baltimore, MD

#16948 Mar 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Kom you silly jackass, that is a terrible tragedy.
So how's that dopey jackass alter ego "Robsan 5"? Does he still get frustrated and bark like a dog after he gets his ass handed to him? Tell him I said F you!
Woof! YUK!YUK!YUK!
Listen, my atheist friend. Read this carefully. I see that you have a hatred against religious and kind people. Do you really think that we are wrong? Do you really think that we are crazy for following religion? Listen, I'm god and religion doesn't exist, we have NOTHING to loose. I personally enjoy having faith in my lord. If God and religion do exist, you will suffer eternally in he'll, my friend.
In other words (in case you are laughing or didn't understand)
If I'm wrong, I have absolutely NOTHING to loose.
If YOU'RE wrong, you will Suffer forever in hell.
You understand my point?
Another thing: if you reply to this post, in an unpleasant manner, i will inject a small '' surprise'' into your modem/router.
You think I'm joking. No. I'm dead serious. Try me. Go ahead. Reply with something rude. I doubt you will be able to access your Internet afterwards.
About gay marriage. I think a person should have their freedom. But, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, for the child's sake. Same sex marriage makes the child lack a mother or a father. Its essential for a child to have two genders in the household for proper development. Google it.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#16949 Mar 10, 2013
Flashopia wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, my atheist friend. Read this carefully. I see that you have a hatred against religious and kind people. Do you really think that we are wrong? Do you really think that we are crazy for following religion? Listen, I'm god and religion doesn't exist, we have NOTHING to loose. I personally enjoy having faith in my lord. If God and religion do exist, you will suffer eternally in he'll, my friend.
In other words (in case you are laughing or didn't understand)
If I'm wrong, I have absolutely NOTHING to loose.
If YOU'RE wrong, you will Suffer forever in hell.
You understand my point?
Another thing: if you reply to this post, in an unpleasant manner, i will inject a small '' surprise'' into your modem/router.
You think I'm joking. No. I'm dead serious. Try me. Go ahead. Reply with something rude. I doubt you will be able to access your Internet afterwards.
About gay marriage. I think a person should have their freedom. But, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, for the child's sake. Same sex marriage makes the child lack a mother or a father. Its essential for a child to have two genders in the household for proper development. Google it.
Do you also support removing every child from every single parent home?

Do you realize that 40% of children are born to unwed mothers?

Do you, by chance, know what century you're living in?
Robsan5

United States

#16950 Mar 10, 2013
Flashopia wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, my atheist friend. Read this carefully. I see that you have a hatred against religious and kind people. Do you really think that we are wrong? Do you really think that we are crazy for following religion? Listen, I'm god and religion doesn't exist, we have NOTHING to loose. I personally enjoy having faith in my lord. If God and religion do exist, you will suffer eternally in he'll, my friend.
In other words (in case you are laughing or didn't understand)
If I'm wrong, I have absolutely NOTHING to loose.
If YOU'RE wrong, you will Suffer forever in hell.
You understand my point?
Another thing: if you reply to this post, in an unpleasant manner, i will inject a small '' surprise'' into your modem/router.
You think I'm joking. No. I'm dead serious. Try me. Go ahead. Reply with something rude. I doubt you will be able to access your Internet afterwards.
About gay marriage. I think a person should have their freedom. But, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, for the child's sake. Same sex marriage makes the child lack a mother or a father. Its essential for a child to have two genders in the household for proper development. Google it.
You are an idiot.
Google it.

Robert

Since: Mar 13

Caledonia, MI

#16951 Mar 10, 2013
This is supposed to be about civil law and civil unions, not your bible. Will this ever end?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#16952 Mar 10, 2013
While children tend to do better with two parents rather than one, gender is not a determining variable. The most important factor is the relationship between the parent and child.

Hawaii Supreme Court testamony:

Dr. Eggebeen (witness against marriage equality) also conceded that "gay and lesbian couples can, and do, make excellent parents" "that they are capable of raising a healthy child", and "that children of same sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive benefits of marriage".

Dr. Charlotte Patterson: there was "no data or research which establishes that gay fathers and lesbian mothers are less capable of being good parents than non-gay people.

Dr. David Brodzinsky: The issue is not the structural variable, biological versus nonbiological, one parent versus two parent. The issue is really the process variables, how children are cared for, is the child provided warmth, it the child provided consistency of care, is the child provided a stimulated environment, is the e child given support.... and when you take a look at structural variables, there's not all that much support that structural variable in and of themselves are all that important.

Dr. Pepper Shwartz: "the primary quality of parenting is not the parenting structure, or biology, but is the nurturing relationship between parent and child."

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#16953 Mar 10, 2013
A better question than, "Should same-sex marriage become legal?" is whether opposite-sex marriage should continue to retain its institutional status.

Because, what is so special about opposite-sex relationships that people in opposite-sex relationships are singled out for special treatment? Is there any reason why people in opposite-sex relationships should be treated any differently than anyone else in any other sort of relationship?

It is not enough that homosexual marriage advocates make the argument that "gay couples should get to marry because straight couples get to do it." The question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do straight couples even get to marry in the first place?" Why indeed?!

The issue of homosexual marriage calls into the question the government’s motivation for having instituted marriage in the first place.
Robsan5

United States

#16954 Mar 11, 2013
Charlie Feather wrote:
...The issue of homosexual marriage calls into the question the government’s motivation for having instituted marriage in the first place.
You really don't have any valid arguements left, do you?
Charles, you are on the wrong side of history. I told that last year, and it's even more true today.

Robert
Robsan5

United States

#16955 Mar 11, 2013
Opps:
I told 'you' that...

Robert

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#16956 Mar 11, 2013
As I said already, I'm all fer freedom t' love an' marry whoever ya choose. It's time Christian bigotry went the way of the Dodo bird.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#16958 Mar 11, 2013
Charlie Feather wrote:
A better question than, "Should same-sex marriage become legal?" is whether opposite-sex marriage should continue to retain its institutional status.
Because, what is so special about opposite-sex relationships that people in opposite-sex relationships are singled out for special treatment? Is there any reason why people in opposite-sex relationships should be treated any differently than anyone else in any other sort of relationship?
It is not enough that homosexual marriage advocates make the argument that "gay couples should get to marry because straight couples get to do it." The question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do straight couples even get to marry in the first place?" Why indeed?!
The issue of homosexual marriage calls into the question the government’s motivation for having instituted marriage in the first place.
There is no getting out now. Marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

The marriages of same sex couples should be treated equally under the current laws because marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals:

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Marriage provides 1,138 federal rights and protections in addition to the hundreds of state provisions. Property and financial protections are among those interests in which the state must be involved.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16959 Mar 11, 2013
Charlie Feather wrote:
A better question than, "Should same-sex marriage become legal?" is whether opposite-sex marriage should continue to retain its institutional status.
Because, what is so special about opposite-sex relationships that people in opposite-sex relationships are singled out for special treatment? Is there any reason why people in opposite-sex relationships should be treated any differently than anyone else in any other sort of relationship?
It is not enough that homosexual marriage advocates make the argument that "gay couples should get to marry because straight couples get to do it." The question that needs to be addressed is, "Why do straight couples even get to marry in the first place?" Why indeed?!
The issue of homosexual marriage calls into the question the government’s motivation for having instituted marriage in the first place.
What compelling state interest does the government have to promote opposite sex marriage only?
Zeendam

Omaha, NE

#16960 Jun 10, 2013
ask me i will reply wrote:
<quoted text>
you are mad because I choose to be a dumb cunt as you assert.
Suit yourself.
Lost in translation

Tokyo, Japan

#16962 Jun 12, 2013
Same sex,,marriage...Their happiness,`can`t
butt in there.
The only problem is that there will be kids who will have two moms or two dads.
One question..where is the kid coming from?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#16964 Jan 13, 2015
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no getting out now. Marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.
The marriages of same sex couples should be treated equally under the current laws because marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals:
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Marriage provides 1,138 federal rights and protections in addition to the hundreds of state provisions. Property and financial protections are among those interests in which the state must be involved.
You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution.
The question that must be answered first is: What is the government's interest in the relationships of opposite-sex couples?

If there is no legitimate governmental interest in the relationships of opposite-sex couples, then there is none either in the relationships of same-sex couples.

If there is none, then it is time for the government to disengage itself from marriage altogether and provide no legal status for either opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16965 Jan 13, 2015
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
The question that must be answered first is: What is the government's interest in the relationships of opposite-sex couples?
If there is no legitimate governmental interest in the relationships of opposite-sex couples, then there is none either in the relationships of same-sex couples.
If there is none, then it is time for the government to disengage itself from marriage altogether and provide no legal status for either opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples.
There is a compelling state interest in helping families.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#16967 Jan 13, 2015
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a compelling state interest in helping families.
What is the "compelling state interest" in two people who want to live together?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16968 Jan 13, 2015
Charlie Feather wrote:
What is the "compelling state interest" in two people who want to live together?
Sweetie, the government has an interest in all legal contracts, which is their interest in recognizing contracts of marriage. Just a reminder to the willfully disinforming, the notion of a compelling state interest, applies only to what must be proved in order to deny the individual their right to marry the legal partner of their choice. Pardon the expression, but try and keep that straight.
maze

Gaza, Palestinian Territory

#16969 Jan 14, 2015
How much is it It's five dollars English song for Children Let's chant Listen and Repeat .
http://youtu.be/UdBcinVYN4E
http://youtu.be/UdBcinVYN4E

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.

Social Security Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How Undocumented Immigrants Help Strengthen Our... 15 hr grownups 213
News Victor Davis Hanson 6 hours ago Sat tomin cali 3
News Social Security disability fund projected to ru... Sat WE PORK HICKS 90
2016 medicare part b premium increase Jul 29 john 1
News Personal finance Q&A: Installment loan debt vs.... Jul 26 conrad tyler 1
News Undocumented Immigrants are victims, not crimin... Jul 25 Masters crew 413
News Woman accused of shooting firearms instructor d... Jul 25 Masters crew 2
More from around the web