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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6329 Oct 6, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Way to go, crap on adoptees like my sister, who was born with a congenital heart defect to a teen mother, but now lives a completely normal life.
You're a total douche-bag, Greg. I know, that's rude to douche-bags.
Aw, are you mad? A little dose of your own medicine is good for you!

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#6330 Oct 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A ss couple cannot procreate a child.
A Same/Religion couple can not produce an intelligent child. There should be a law against two people of the same religion getting married because their children always turn out stupid like their parents.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#6331 Oct 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden is on you, not me. I don't need to prove that polygamy will not harm you, you need to prove it will harm you. Just like in same sex marriage.
That seems completely reasonable you pig.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6332 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Do all 100 parents have equal custody of the child? How would you change the laws to accommodate groups? Would all have to agree if some wanted to adopt? How do you account for the Cinderella effect? Property divisions in case one wants to leave?
Social Security?
Debt?
Taxes?
How will you re-write the laws?
Again. Not as difficult as you make it out to be and no reason to deny equal protection.

So sorry. Play again! Insert another nickel please.

Or else tell the judge. "Your honor. In this case we can deny equal protection. Because it might be complicated to grant it."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6334 Oct 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A ss couple cannot procreate a child.
Simply produce a legitimate study that equates a default couple with natural parents, including study methods.
You then still have the insurmountable problem of depriving a child of a father or mother.
A same sex couple can both have biological connections to the child by using genetic material from one, and from a close relative of one partner, if biological connection is important to both of them.

Again, biological connection is no guarantee a child will not be denied a mother or a father or both, or that they will not be abused or killed. The nurturing quality of the relationship is the important variable. Adoption provides a child with two caring and motivated parents instead of having none.

The level of documentation you demand usually requires a fee for access to professional journals. Meanwhile, mainstream medical and mental health organizations agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.

Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation."

But all of this is about reproduction, adoption, and being good parents, not marriage, as raising children has never been a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual. Marriage provides benefits and protections for children, but none are required. Ability to have sex is not even a requirement.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6335 Oct 6, 2013
Little Joe wrote:
<quoted text>Gay marriage is an act against God,Nature,family life, decency,clean living and anything else. These people need to be locked up with the insane.
There is no god so doesn't matter...Many signs of gay sex in nature getting married si good to make a family even for gay people...nothing undecent about gay sex....Gay people are way way way cleaner then toothless inbred Nazi KKK pigs(like you)

How about we lock up you Nazi traitors......YOUR THE PROBLEM

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6336 Oct 6, 2013
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects."
Gill

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6337 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
A same sex couple can both have biological connections to the child by using genetic material from one, and from a close relative of one partner, if biological connection is important to both of them.
Again, biological connection is no guarantee a child will not be denied a mother or a father or both, or that they will not be abused or killed. The nurturing quality of the relationship is the important variable. Adoption provides a child with two caring and motivated parents instead of having none.
The level of documentation you demand usually requires a fee for access to professional journals. Meanwhile, mainstream medical and mental health organizations agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics:
"Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.
Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation."
But all of this is about reproduction, adoption, and being good parents, not marriage, as raising children has never been a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual. Marriage provides benefits and protections for children, but none are required. Ability to have sex is not even a requirement.
Quit whining and put up or shut up.

Moreover, there are numerous studies of default family comparisons that back my assertion available on line.

You are attempting to present unscientific and biased lesbian studies that hide their methods. There are no gay couple studies.

Leave children alone.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6338 Oct 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit whining and put up or shut up.
Moreover, there are numerous studies of default family comparisons that back my assertion available on line.
You are attempting to present unscientific and biased lesbian studies that hide their methods. There are no gay couple studies.
Leave children alone.
Worst thing for a child is for them to be raised in a home filled with hate and bigotry..That is why I think religous people should have there children taken from them...POOR CHILDREN BEINGT AUGHT TO AHTE AND ATTACK PEOPLE BECAUSE OF WHO THEY WERE BORN OR LIFE THEY LEAD....SICK F-ING NAZI RELIGOUS THUGS.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6339 Oct 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden is on you, not me. I don't need to prove that polygamy will not harm you, you need to prove it will harm you. Just like in same sex marriage.

And still you ignore the difference between gender and number. Removing the number restriction is a different argument you haven't tried to make, except to ignore it requires re-writing the laws for everyone (if they are to be constitutional) while removing the gender restriction does not.

Because the number restriction has been ruled to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental protection for individual rights, number has passed the test gender has failed.

Therefore it is up to you to convince the judge, legislature, and executive branches to rewrite the laws of marriage for everyone in a way that favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6340 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still you ignore the difference between gender and number. Removing the number restriction is a different argument you haven't tried to make, except to ignore it requires re-writing the laws for everyone (if they are to be constitutional) while removing the gender restriction does not.
Because the number restriction has been ruled to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental protection for individual rights, number has passed the test gender has failed.
Therefore it is up to you to convince the judge, legislature, and executive branches to rewrite the laws of marriage for everyone in a way that favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
And your argument against marriage equality for people you don't like continues to be "It should be illegal because it's different".

The burden is on you power trooper. Don't demand someone prove that their marriage doesn't harm you, prove it does harm you or get over yourself and let them marry.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#6341 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Worst thing for a child is for them to be raised in a home filled with hate and bigotry..That is why I think religous people should have there children taken from them...POOR CHILDREN BEINGT AUGHT TO AHTE AND ATTACK PEOPLE BECAUSE OF WHO THEY WERE BORN OR LIFE THEY LEAD....SICK F-ING NAZI RELIGOUS THUGS.
What a hateful, ignorant bigot.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6342 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still you ignore the difference between gender and number. Removing the number restriction is a different argument you haven't tried to make, except to ignore it requires re-writing the laws for everyone (if they are to be constitutional) while removing the gender restriction does not.
Because the number restriction has been ruled to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental protection for individual rights, number has passed the test gender has failed.
Therefore it is up to you to convince the judge, legislature, and executive branches to rewrite the laws of marriage for everyone in a way that favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
If polygamy went to SCOTUS today, they would be very hard pressed to justify it's illegality. But please enlighten us. How would you convince them?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#6343 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still you ignore the difference between gender and number. Removing the number restriction is a different argument you haven't tried to make, except to ignore it requires re-writing the laws for everyone (if they are to be constitutional) while removing the gender restriction does not.
Because the number restriction has been ruled to provide a compelling, legitimate governmental protection for individual rights, number has passed the test gender has failed.
Therefore it is up to you to convince the judge, legislature, and executive branches to rewrite the laws of marriage for everyone in a way that favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
You don't have to prove same sex marriage wouldn't harm anyone, they have to prove it would.

Same for polygamy. What's good for the gay goose is good for the poly gander.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#6344 Oct 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a hateful, ignorant bigot.
Yes you are....typical of religious Nazi pigs...
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6345 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
...and why shouldn't we get our fair share? We pay taxes, too, ya know.
I pay my taxes too! Why can't I get MY share? Why should the minority of single people subsidize marriage?...because you're a bigot!

You will win this battle because the rich really don't lose anything here. The tax burden is on the masses. The single people threaten the rich by not being encumbered with the responsibility of family so they will gladly allow the majority to rip the minority off, just as they did with slaves, native americans and anyone else who had resources but not the means to protect them.

...and that is why they AND their children must pay the price. It must be absolutely learned that you don't make foolish choices with your children's future in order to get your gubbermint money today. The coming civil conflict IS YOUR fault for making deals with the rich at the expense of others. The musical chairs game has almost run its course and when gays and straights, men and women, whites and blacks, and so on, all are convinced that compromise will not get them anywhere, then the real deal will begin.

The children will have to suffer because they're going to anyway. It's just a matter of making sure that they understand that we didn't take their life of comfort away from them. We just restore order, and they will only appreciate that order when they are willing to be part of making it.
reporter joe

Anonymous Proxy

#6346 Oct 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a hateful, ignorant bigot.
You have to expect that from a gaggot.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6347 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
You flunked out of Law School, didn't you?
Never was interested in being a lawyer. As far as pathos goes, you really don't think everyone on this forum is holding their own on legal awareness, do you? Kind of an impotent gesture to accuse someone of flunking out of law school when the average Zippy in this crowd would never get in!

Still, I take a tiny bit of amusement in what seems to be a tendency for Topix to post their survey topics almost right after I bring up something identical in my debates. Just today, there's a new survey on what amounts to gay Affirmative Action.

It's not that the results matter. Gay Affirmative Action would annoy the rich, where as gay marriage is just something else to $hit on single taxpayers with. Topix forums aren't where you'll get a bead on that. That's about money, and in our gubbermint, the voters don't have any business meddling in matters of money!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#6348 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.
His grave is in Washington DC’s Congressional Cemetery, where additional gay veterans have since chosen to be buried.
The tombstone reads:
A Gay Vietnam Veteran
When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one
SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said,“Leonard Matlovich’s extraordinary courage in a time when gays and lesbians faced extreme prejudice is an example for us all. He was a brave pioneer and set off a struggle that we can finally envision winning. The debt that gay veterans—and the entire gay community—owe to Sergeant Matlovich cannot be overstated.”
Angered by the ban, he purposely declared his homosexuality in a 1975 letter to Air Force Secretary John McLucas and fought to remain in the military. Sergeant Matlovich’s case won widespread media attention. On September 8, 1975, Matlovich appeared on the cover of Time magazine in uniform over the headline “I Am a Homosexual; The Gay Drive for Acceptance.”
After losing his bid to remain in the Air Force through their administrative proceedings, a US District Court judge ordered Matlovich reinstated with back pay. After more litigation, Matlovich eventually accepted a financial settlement and an upgrade to honorable discharge. He continued his tireless efforts for gay equality in the civilian sector.
Two simple questions! Yes or No is all that's required.

1. Are you of the opinion that killing two men makes a person brave and/or a hero?

2. Does "loving" a man and confronting people with that action make a person brave and/or a hero?

Everything is about values and context. You don't like yes/no questions, do you? We've got a lot of that here. So why is a man's character defined by either killing people or having sex with them?

Yeah, that's a pretty stupid way to look at life. I hope your hero didn't kill some people just so he could call himself a manly man and argue in favor of homosexuality. We have more than enough mercenaries collecting scalps so they can get free drinks at the bar.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#6350 Oct 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. You have no reasoned point by point response.
The Distinctions of Marriage
Marriage is a miraculous union of two genders, a union so profound, it is described as the union of Mars and Venus. It reunites humanity to the roots of life, while at the very same time hosting the best and natural birth place of future human life. It is the blend of masculinity and femininity. The wisdom of logic and intuition united. Strength and delicacy perfectly balanced. Protection and nurture combined as one. A complimentary merging that multiplies the unbiased blend of humanity's genders.
A ss couple cannot equate to a single one of these distinctions.
I could respond to you with much more content but you're not worth it.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 min Eagle 12 4,845
Obama to GOP: Stop copying me on economy 5 min Eleanor 86
Texas lawmaker married five times files error-f... 5 min Imprtnrd 38
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Strel 149,638
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 min phil shifley 172,055
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min flack 1,191,515
Delhi gay 8 min jony 12
United Airlines won't accept rechargeable batte... 10 min Nutters Compass 3
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 13 min Valerie 313,023
Scott Walker reverses immigration stance 20 min Cat74 52
Brrr! February brought record cold, snow to Nor... 30 min Cubaking Rules 35
More from around the web