However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

Mar 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NewsCenter 25

However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

Comments
681 - 700 of 2,351 Comments Last updated May 29, 2013

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#694
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
You slipped "multiple people in there. How are multiple, unrelated adult not similarly situated?
Ummm, because 3 or 4 is not the same as 2- regardless of gender. That's why they can't currently marry, even in states or countries which allow same-sex couples to marry.

Not similarly situated like 2 unrelated adults are to all other 2 unrelated adult couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#695
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. No one would have a problem with an openly gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex. As some on here have pointed out, it happens.
Therefore the "gays getting married" is not an issue and therefore those against gay marriage are against gays marrying gays, not against gays themselves. You want to be gay? Go for it. Just don't ask me to change the rules so we have to incentivize your marriage to another gay.
See, that's just it, we don't have to ask YOU because YOU don't make the rules.

When you're on the SCOTUS or are an elected legislator, THEN we'll worry about asking you.

We're TELLING you that gays can marry in 9 states and 11 countries with more to come.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#696
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still waiting for any of you to come up with a single example of people not being able to enter a contract because they are not similarly situated, much less family members.
Until you can do that, you look silly using the words.
Hint: you have no clue what you are talking about. Lawsuits are not contracts.
1. Marriage contracts- family members, polygamists, underage children, mentally incapacitated.

2. Almost ANY conract where one party is underage or mentally incapacitated.

3. Military service contracts

Etc, etc, etc.

If you're not similarly situated you can't enter into contracts.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#697
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
I'm just pointing out what the gay marriage advocates are really pushing for.(and they would be more vocal about the plural and familial aspect of it if they were REALLY for marriage equality)
We are pushing for equality in marriage law for those similarly situated.

A father & son or mother & son are NOT similarly situated to an unrelated couple, and therefore CAN be constitutionally banned from entering into that conract.

If you can't understand that, then we can't help you.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#698
Mar 30, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
See, that's just it, we don't have to ask YOU because YOU don't make the rules.
When you're on the SCOTUS or are an elected legislator, THEN we'll worry about asking you.
We're TELLING you that gays can marry in 9 states and 11 countries with more to come.
You keep forgetting to tell him about the FUN parts.

You should concentrate on telling him about that !

:)

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#702
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCREATION.
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
“Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring.” and “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
And if gay marriage bans fail the justification test, there is no legal reason incestuous marriage that does not produce children can.
That was 1942. Babies outside of wedlock were rarely planned then. Marriage is not necessary to have kids. People have kids outside of marriage all the time. It may not be the ideal, but it is very common, which is quite different than it was in 1942.

The argument you keep quoting implies marriage is necessary for procreation and denying marriage denies procreation. That no longer applies.

If that's the best you've got against gay marriage, you've lost.

If you want to get upset about incestuous marriage that does not produce children, you go ahead and waste your energy on that for all 3 people who will do it.

You have problems.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#703
Mar 30, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell does AIDS have to do with marriage anyway? Women get breast cancer. Should we bar women from marriage for it?
Actually, there are far more str8 people in the world infected with hiv, than there are gay people with hiv. How about we just stop str8 people from marrying ?

And since he seems to have such a problem with gay and lesbian people, and it's a PROVEN FACT that str8 people are the ones producing gay and lesbian peple, how about we just pass a law that forbids str8 people form reproducing ?:)

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#704
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
So, why does it?
Clearly it is not to make people "happier, healthier, and more productive" because there are plenty of other ways to do that which are not limited to those who marry AND not only was it not proven that marriage causes those things when the benefits were established, that causal relationship haven't even been proven today.
Useless, unfounded conjecture. Appropriately, dismissed.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#705
Mar 30, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Inter-racial marriages are different from same-race marriages. Inter-faith marriages are different from same-faith marriages.
Inter-ethnic marriages are different from same-ethnic marriages.
And yes, to use your terminology, gay marriages are different form heterosexual marriages.
They're all still marriages.
And there is no reason one marriage should be treated any differently by the government than any other marriage.
Well done.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#706
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there are legitimate reasons to end marriage--
The seven "At fault" reasons are
CRUEL AND ABUSIVE TREATMENT
UTTER DESERTION CONTINUED FOR ONE YEAR
SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT IN A PENAL INSTITUTION
GROSS AND CONFIRMED HABITS OF INTOXICATION CAUSED BY VOLUNTARY AND EXCESSIVE USE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, OPIUM OR OTHER DRUGS
GROSS OR WANTON AND CRUEL REFUSAL OR NEGLECT TO PROVIDE SUITABLE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE OTHER SPOUSE
ADULTERY
IMPOTENCY
For those of you who claim marriage isn't based on procreation, the last one sure is interesting, isn't it?
We can always fix that if it bothers you.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#707
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but all of those marriages have a characteristic which gay marriages do not. A characteristic the justices EXPLICITLY called out when discussing such marriages and why heterosexual marriage is important to society.
Which is why gay marriage is not "still marriage". Under federal law, gay marriage cannot exist because of the definition of marriage (which matches the traditional definition in US history). Which is why people point out that gays are trying to redefine marriage and have in some states.
Is that it? You won't feel "important" anymore? Get therapy.

I posted this before, I believe you skipped it:

If all kinds of childless straight couples can get married as "just an exception" then gay marriages can also be "just an exception."

Otherwise it's just prejudice.

You have no point to make regarding procreation. Give it up.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#708
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the court that matters.
Yet. Duh.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#709
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I have. If marriage is declared right, there is no reason why a father and son cannot get married.
That's stupid. If a man can marry a woman, there is no reason why a father can't marry his daughter.

Go.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#710
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
So? It was still a tradition.
You certainly cannot say the same with gays.
It's funny how you think that was making a point.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#711
Mar 30, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't have one. guess that's why they resort to the incest arguments, as though that wouldn't apply equally to current marriage law. I mean, by their "reasoning", if a man and woman can marry, why can't a man marry his daughter?
Silly stuff.
Incest is illegal in the US, with penalties including jail time varying from state to state.

I guess they'd have to go to the Supreme Court to decriminalize incest before proceeding with a marriage claim, as we did in Lawrence v. Texas.

Good luck to them with that LOL.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#713
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Incestuous marriage does not have (and I think, should not) include sex. Instead it would provide a DIFFERENT level of legal kinship that would allow the tax, immigration, etc benefits they don't currently have.
For example, it would allow me to pass my estate and property to someone without facing inheritance tax. Why should that be allowed for some people and not others?
So it's an attempt to defraud. Do you not see how easily that would be prohibited?

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#714
Mar 30, 2013
 
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's stupid. If a man can marry a woman, there is no reason why a father can't marry his daughter.
Go.
Actually, there are very few restrictions on whom one can marry. If both parties are of legal age, then about the only restiction I can think of (taking state laws in their totality) is that one cannot marry an ancestor, nor a descendant, nor a sibling. Other than that, you're free to marry anyone, I believe. I believe Woody Allen married his much-younger stepdaugher.

Do you dispute that ?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#715
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. So you think that married people are immune to HIV?
Please explain A) how a piece of paper from the gov't makes yo immune OR
B) why you need a piece of paper in order to remain faithful to a person you have made a commitment to.
Can you stop being a dick?

You know damned well a piece of paper from the government does not make you immune. Don't insult me with childish nonsense.

Why does ANYONE need a piece of paper in order to remain faithful to anyone?

When we first got married, we didn't have a piece of paper. No, of course that doesn't matter, because we made the commitment before God, and our families and friends. We vowed to be faithful til death do us part, and unlike most straight people, we take that very, very seriously and don't believe in divorce.

So, just like with straight marriage, the marriage itself is a means to an end. If that structure encourages monogamy, so be it. If marriage doesn't encourage monogamy, then it doesn't have much purpose.

Don't tell me people aren't more likely to try to work things out if they are married vs. if they don't have that piece of paper.

Don't make me waste time typing out the basics as if you were a four year old. This pisses me off.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#716
Mar 30, 2013
 
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I already provided evidence that senior citizens CAN naturally conceive and give birth.
When the rules of marriage were established, there was no was to tell for sure who was and was not fertile. So they allowed it for any couple who could possibly conceive.
That's nonsense and BS and you know it. ONE? Get a freaking grip.

So I can point to a story of a woman who had a sex change to a man, is legally a man, and gave birth. Two equally rare and stupid examples that mean NOTHING in context.

If you're reaching for one old lady who gave birth, dude, you have to ask yourself, what the hell is wrong with you?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#717
Mar 30, 2013
 
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> Reality is you are the exception and not the rule. There is no God according to most of your persuasion.
Bullsh!t and bullsh!t. Stopped reading right there. You don't get a discussion if you open with outright lies.

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.

•••
•••