Details About Minnesota Gay Marriage ...

Details About Minnesota Gay Marriage Bill

There are 6 comments on the CBS Local story from May 12, 2013, titled Details About Minnesota Gay Marriage Bill. In it, CBS Local reports that:

Minnesota's Senate is scheduled to debate and vote Monday on a bill to add the state to the growing list of those that allow gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS Local.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 May 12, 2013
Ok, what is the reason for barring the marriage of first cousins, particularly gay first cousins, since at least half the states allow it already ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 May 12, 2013
Debate starts at noon on Monday with a vote expected in the afternoon.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 May 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Debate starts at noon on Monday with a vote expected in the afternoon.
Well, unless they include the marriage of first cousins, I'm against this bill. It's DISCRIMINATION !

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Lewes, DE

#4 May 13, 2013
I listened to the debate on the same subject in the Delaware State Senate recently.

Almost every senator who was projected to vote "no" had to get their two cents in, either personally or by proxy (usually some priest or other religious official) and they were repetitions of the same tired, debunked lines used by anti-gay groups. "Marriage will be destroyed," "We cannot change the definition that was established by God," "Marriage has been one man and one woman for thousands of years," and, of course, "Jeebus. Jeebus. Jeebus." It was painful to listen to them.

Those speaking in favor of the bill, on the other hand, tended to be short and direct, tersely destroying the anti-gay talking points and succinctly holding up the principles of fairness and equality which should be governing in discussions of this nature.(Fairness and equality were two concepts that were not brought up by the anti-gay senators, of course - how could they?)

The other thing the anti-gay senators did was try to table the whole thing for another day, anti-gays wanted to postpone, pro-gay did not.

When the final vote came, we won marriage equality that day in the Delaware State Senate.

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Lewes, DE

#8 May 13, 2013
The Exterminator 6 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree, I think that gays should be able to marry their same sex dogs. I would say their same sex children, but since a same sex couple can not procreate then that would not be fair. What you are saying is the proponents of same sex coupling spun that lie about fair and equal. Of course, they said that incest, polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality were all different.
Here is the thing, if you change the definition of marriage then it no longer is marriage. Justice Roberts put it nicely when he said "it appears that gays just want the name, even if the name no longer has the same meaning".
Besides, if it is fair and equal, then why are gays flooding these states and infiltrated state offices and voting contrary to what the people vote? Here is the thing, I will support the marriage of any two gays that can procreate together.
Let's look at your points.

1) There are lots of same sex couples who have children, and they got them the same way as many other couples - from a former relationship, through technology, adoption, etc. Why should their children be treated differently?

2) I don't recall anyone bringing up incest, polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality. If there are groups out there who want equality on these viewpoints, let them pursue them. They are not part of the current marriage equality push.

3) I'm all for a traditional definition of marriage. My traditional view is that marriage is one man and 700 women and 300 concubines on the side (King Solomon) </SARC>. You upstarts seem to think that the TV show "Leave it to Beaver" and other 1950s sitcoms is the historic tradition upon which the definition of marriage is founded, because anything before that just doesn't fit with your rhetoric (women as chattel, women are the possessions of their husband, marriage between races, etc.).

4) You want to make procreation the deciding test of what is a "legitimate" marriage. You can't procreate, you can't marry. Good luck with that. Will you include some sort of age test in there since women who are older are not likely to be able to procreate?

Your arguments are the same tired, lame arguments made by the anti-gay speakers in the Delaware State Senate, and demolished by those favoring equality. Can we get some NEW material, please?
Heather

United States

#9 May 13, 2013
The faggot nigger lover named qwerty26 just wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's look at your points.
1) There are lots of same sex couples who have children, and they got them the same way as many other couples - from a former relationship, through technology, adoption, etc. Why should their children be treated differently?
2) I don't recall anyone bringing up incest, polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality. If there are groups out there who want equality on these viewpoints, let them pursue them. They are not part of the current marriage equality push.
3) I'm all for a traditional definition of marriage. My traditional view is that marriage is one man and 700 women and 300 concubines on the side (King Solomon) </SARC>. You upstarts seem to think that the TV show "Leave it to Beaver" and other 1950s sitcoms is the historic tradition upon which the definition of marriage is founded, because anything before that just doesn't fit with your rhetoric (women as chattel, women are the possessions of their husband, marriage between races, etc.).
4) You want to make procreation the deciding test of what is a "legitimate" marriage. You can't procreate, you can't marry. Good luck with that. Will you include some sort of age test in there since women who are older are not likely to be able to procreate?
Your arguments are the same tired, lame arguments made by the anti-gay speakers in the Delaware State Senate, and demolished by those favoring equality. Can we get some NEW material, please?
You don`t get "new" material, honey. Homosexuals are a danger to children and housepets - you seemed to have left this out of your Commie rant.

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Frankendrumpf 233,680
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 4 min Golden 10,516
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Realtime 1,406,218
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min THE LONE WORKER 201,772
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 26 min Jacques in North ... 219,777
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 31 min who cares 15,041
News Democratic chief Wasserman Schultz quits amid S... 46 min tina anne 70
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr katrina 88 391,753
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 8 hr Black Russian 5,757
News Poll: Trump supporters unfazed by reversal on s... 8 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 329
More from around the web