Gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman. Full Story
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#4098 Jun 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing whatsoever.
A state interest is required before the state may make law that abridge fundamental or constitutional rights.
Although you have been given extensive leave to prove to the contrary, there is no state interests served by suspending equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry.
Thanks for playing.
You're off your nut! There's no State interest in indulging your loopiness!

Sorry, Jeeves! Your Christian brothers have just demonstrated why you can't just draw a line and say married people are "entitled". They aren't! They say the line is procreation. You say it's a duty to those who share their property and income out of "love".

It seems that "love" isn't a requirement, just procreation. No, it seems that procreation isn't a requirement, just "love".

You're all a bunch of self-important douche-bags. Don't ask to be forgiven. You WILL pay for your sins and within my lifetime. I have no intention of falling into the same idiocy that many Blacks think they can claim. You can't claim civil damages for the actions of dead ancestors who are generations removed. It's all we can do to maintain order in the here and now.

People are raving criminals by nature. They're going to have to play this out and suffer a LOT before they will understand the need to make concessions again. For now, they all got a woody for Empire Amurika(tm)!
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#4099 Jun 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry?
Can a man who has had a vasectomy, and a woman who has undergone tubal ligation legally marry?
Can women past the age of menopause legally marry?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...
Is legal marriage necessary for procreation?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
Once again, you make utterly irrelevant points, and offer no reason why same sex couples specifically should be denied equality under the law to marry.
Feel free to continue to make yourself look foolish. You're doing a great job.

Why deny infertile siblings the right to marry...because its disgusting ,the majority of the population dont want it,its not normal social behaviour,and they already have the right to marry under the current laws like everyone else who has that exact same right so marriage inequality is not an issue thus the current laws already provide marriage equality to everyone and dont need to be changed. The exact same reasons that apply to the attraction challenged.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#4100 Jun 11, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>The cruel and arbitrary living "God" of the Bible who is a jealous, vindictive, genocidal megalomaniac? That one? I pity you for your inability to perceive our Creator as something less human-like. But that's what organized religion must do to keep you feeding their coffers. They instill fear in the faithful and you suck it up dutifully while paying for the privilege. That's what's pitiful.
Then you should know what lies in your future.

Hebrews 10:31 (NKJV)
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4101 Jun 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
lides asks:
<quoted text>Yes, sterile heterosexuals couples may marry. Again, procreation is a benefit from marriage, not a requirement for marriage.
An ideal model, a social role. Get it?
procreation is not a benefit from marriage in any way. in no way does a couple need to be married to procreate...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4102 Jun 11, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Why deny infertile siblings the right to marry...because its disgusting ,the majority of the population dont want it,its not normal social behaviour,and they already have the right to marry under the current laws like everyone else who has that exact same right so marriage inequality is not an issue thus the current laws already provide marriage equality to everyone and dont need to be changed. The exact same reasons that apply to the attraction challenged.
quite the strawman argument. heterosexual sibling cant marry now this has nothing to do with the SSM issue...nothing at all
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#4103 Jun 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>quite the strawman argument. heterosexual sibling cant marry now this has nothing to do with the SSM issue...nothing at all
Yes it does,the same arguments could be used to deny or allow either to marry.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

freshroast666@gmail.com

#4104 Jun 11, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should know what lies in your future.
Hebrews 10:31 (NKJV)
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Nope. And neither do you.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4105 Jun 12, 2013
anonymous wrote:
You're off your nut! There's no State interest in indulging your loopiness!
I sense a self important, meandering, pointless rant coming on.
anonymous wrote:
Sorry, Jeeves! Your Christian brothers have just demonstrated why you can't just draw a line and say married people are "entitled". They aren't!
This has nothing to do with Christianity or religion, it is a matter of civil law. However, you may have just shown the true basis of your own position.
anonymous wrote:
They say the line is procreation. You say it's a duty to those who share their property and income out of "love".
It seems that "love" isn't a requirement, just procreation. No, it seems that procreation isn't a requirement, just "love".
Actually, neither are required. Legal marriage is a civil matter, if one would want to marry sheerly for legal benefits, that is entirely legal. I have friends who are accountants who civilly marry or divorce based upon tax liability for the year.
anonymous wrote:
You're all a bunch of self-important douche-bags. Don't ask to be forgiven. You WILL pay for your sins and within my lifetime. I have no intention of falling into the same idiocy that many Blacks think they can claim. You can't claim civil damages for the actions of dead ancestors who are generations removed. It's all we can do to maintain order in the here and now.
Once again,y ow are bringing the religion to a civil debate. Read the first amendment, never the twain shall meet.
You truly have unveiled your underlying motivation, and it is irrelevant.
anonymous wrote:
People are raving criminals by nature.
Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid?
I would invite you to cite criminal code in the US tht criminalizes homosexuality.
Now you just look ignorant.
anonymous wrote:
They're going to have to play this out and suffer a LOT before they will understand the need to make concessions again. For now, they all got a woody for Empire Amurika(tm)!
Congratulations, you are not terribly intelligent or rational?
common sense wrote:
Why deny infertile siblings the right to marry...because its disgusting ,the majority of the population dont want it,its not normal social behaviour,and they already have the right to marry under the current laws like everyone else who has that exact same right so marriage inequality is not an issue thus the current laws already provide marriage equality to everyone and dont need to be changed. The exact same reasons that apply to the attraction challenged.
Then perhaps you should not have introduced such an short-sighted argument. The fact remains we live in a free society, and that means that unless it hurts someone else, or is contrary to a compelling state interest, people can basically do what they want. One would have to be an idiot to bring up same sex incest, because the compelling state interest does not exist. Of course, the fools that bring up this argument think they are making a valid argument against same sex marriage, but they are not, they are merely making a valid argument for same sex incest. Well played.

The words and actions of the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are, in your own childlike words “disgusting ,the majority of the population dont want it,its not normal social behavior”, but they are still covered by free speech.

Grow a thicker skin, equality is coming, regardless of how bigoted you are.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#4106 Jun 12, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. And neither do you.
But I do indeed know. This is the terminal generation.

Revelation 9:15 (NKJV)
15 So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4107 Jun 12, 2013
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does,the same arguments could be used to deny or allow either to marry.
it was no argument... it was a non-sequiter.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4108 Jun 12, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
But I do indeed know. This is the terminal generation.
Revelation 9:15 (NKJV)
15 So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind.
only a foolish cult member like you would believe a book that has openly lied to you from page one to the last...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4109 Jun 12, 2013
common sense wrote:
Yes it does,the same arguments could be used to deny or allow either to marry.
No, it's just a pitiful attempt to rationalize your position.

The reality remains that you are left to argue an irrelevant issue because you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#4110 Jun 12, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's just a pitiful attempt to rationalize your position.
The reality remains that you are left to argue an irrelevant issue because you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
nobody can find ANY valid argument against SSM. All they have are opinions.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4111 Jun 12, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
nobody can find ANY valid argument against SSM. All they have are opinions.
All they have is BS and rationalizations.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4112 Jun 12, 2013
lides wrote: Yet another swing and a miss Brian. You are correct, procreation is not a requirement of marriage, but it isn't a benefit of marriage either. Perhaps you missed the second of my links, which you so kindly deleted in your response (no worries, I can re-post them). The second one more directly addresses your assertion that "procreation is a benefit from marriage", an assertion that is simply laughable. Almost half of births in this country are to unwed parents. Apparently, procreation isn't "a benefit from marriage" after all.

>>>From the argument above, note the assault on the family, normalizing illegitimacy? lides writes like unwed birth are a good thing, but doesn't call them 'benefits'. He'd allow us to conclude procreation is a benefit of unwed heterosexual relations but not go so far as to make a literal admission.

Same sex marriage is bad, like unwed parenthood, teen pregnancy, abortion, intrusive regulation, wasteful government spending and higher taxes are bad. Not so bad as losing a war but worse than winning.

If you want to stop the NSA from tracking everywhere you go and everything you do; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4113 Jun 12, 2013
"procreation is not a benefit from marriage in any way. in no way does a couple need to be married to procreate..."

woodtick57 states the case; they see no benefit in the benefits of marriage; faithful sexual relations and a stable home for the offspring of that union. I'm not writing procreation is mere fertilization; it means the creation of an adult citizen. That's not a benefit, how?

We don't want to raise our children on welfare; that's not right. We want less government, not a new regulation normalizing gender segregation marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4114 Jun 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
From the argument above, note the assault on the family, normalizing illegitimacy?
There is no such assault, just a calling out of facts as they exist in reality. You seem to wish to live in a fairytale land where sex only occurs in marriage and all children are born to wedded parents who would never give them up for adoption. Reality is a little less Disney.
Brian_G wrote:
lides writes like unwed birth are a good thing, but doesn't call them 'benefits'.
No, I don't. I don't call it a benefit, because it is not. It does however exist, and that is a matter of fact. I bring it up because it disproves your unsubstantiated assertions.
Brian_G wrote:
He'd allow us to conclude procreation is a benefit of unwed heterosexual relations but not go so far as to make a literal admission.
Once again, it appears that your reading comprehension skills are not strong. I make the point because you are still making absurd claims regarding procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage, which simply put are bogus.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad, like unwed parenthood, teen pregnancy, abortion, intrusive regulation, wasteful government spending and higher taxes are bad. Not so bad as losing a war but worse than winning.
Sorry charlie. Equal protection of the law is Constitutionally mandated. The constitution is good, equality is good, your infantile attempts to negate equality are shameful and without foundation in fact, law, logic, or reason. You are an intensely disingenuous person, with no valid argument to back your argument.
Brian_G wrote:
If you want to stop the NSA from tracking everywhere you go and everything you do; keep marriage one man and one woman.
OK, now this is just dumb. How does disallowing same sex marriage affect NSA tracking?

You sir, are an idiot, who is utterly incapable of indicating any legitimate reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law (as guaranteed by the US Constitution) to marry.

I am through responding to your infantile, ignorant, and bigoted gibberish.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#4115 Jun 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>only a foolish cult member like you would believe a book that has openly lied to you from page one to the last...
Satan is leading you to Hell. Open your eyes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#4116 Jun 12, 2013
Any ideal is Disney? Why shouldn't we raise boys to become graduates, employees, men, husbands and fathers? Is it bad to raise girls to wait for marriage before conception? These things happen too, and many find value in encouraging that social model.

Same sex marriage supporters should learn more about their culture. Some of this is remedial.

Same sex marriage is like ignorant barbarism compared to the civilization and husband/wife marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4117 Jun 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Any ideal is Disney? Why shouldn't we raise boys to become graduates, employees, men, husbands and fathers? Is it bad to raise girls to wait for marriage before conception?
Guess what, same sex couples raise children that are doing those very things. Feel free to prove to the contrary.
Brian_G wrote:
These things happen too, and many find value in encouraging that social model.
Which they are allowed to do. What they may not do is use the law as an instrument to force others to live by their "social model".
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage supporters should learn more about their culture. Some of this is remedial.
Those oppose to equality should learn about the US Constitution. It's actually a big part of our culture.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like ignorant barbarism compared to the civilization and husband/wife marriage.
No, it's not. It is equal protection of the law as afforded by the US Constitution, and thus far you have consistently failed to offer any legitimate reason to deny such equal protection.

Your problem, Brian, is that you suffer from ******* of the mouth that you seldom, if ever, substantiate with fact, law, or reason.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min John Galt 1,153,646
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 2 min yehoshooah adam 9,800
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min its not fair 293,340
US to start talks with Cuba to normalize full d... 3 min kuda 50
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 3 min Reverend Alan 4,972
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min loose cannon 181,785
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 6 min Thinking 2,353
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min dirtclod 132,256
NY judge may toss 4 guilty pleas in inside-trad... 1 hr Your Ex 1
Sony hack renews cybersecurity push 1 hr Eleanor 2
More from around the web