Challenges to gay marriage bans: Wher...

Challenges to gay marriage bans: Where they stand

There are 64 comments on the The Modesto Bee story from Aug 5, 2014, titled Challenges to gay marriage bans: Where they stand. In it, The Modesto Bee reports that:

State bans on same-sex marriages have been falling around the country since last summer, when the Supreme Court ordered the federal government to recognize state-sanctioned gay marriages.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Modesto Bee.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#46 Aug 18, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well said. But I think that religion and science do oppose each other in that those who rely on science reject religion, whereas those who accept religion generally accept science too.
People that reject religion and God are somewhat myopic believing that all these great things happening in the world today are just dumb luck. I often wonder who these people cry out for moments or minutes before they realize they are going to die.
Science is not dumb luck, sometimes random events play a role but not luck (it doesn't exist either).

We don't call out to nonexistent mythical beings, that's for sure.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#48 Aug 19, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>....whereas those who accept religion generally accept science too.....
LOL!!!! SERIOUSLY???? Like how religious folks believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that people rode around on dinosaurs???

Yeah, those religious folks are all about the science stuff, aren't they??

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#50 Aug 20, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!! SERIOUSLY???? Like how religious folks believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that people rode around on dinosaurs???
Yeah, those religious folks are all about the science stuff, aren't they??
The Catholic Church lifted the excommunication on Galileo back in the 80's (?), geez, only 500 years too late!

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#51 Aug 21, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
The Catholic Church lifted the excommunication on Galileo back in the 80's (?), geez, only 500 years too late!
That's because they want to make sure the person they attempted to harm is really dead.
Kermudgeon

Buffalo, NY

#53 Aug 22, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why?
Only a demented pervert would be irrational and insecure enough to want to murder millions of men, women and children because of a harmless natural trait that affects no one but them.
What happened to you to cause your mind to work this way?
It's a long story. Anyway, I'm just stirring up shit. People seem to enjoy that.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#54 Aug 23, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is not dumb luck, sometimes random events play a role but not luck (it doesn't exist either).
We don't call out to nonexistent mythical beings, that's for sure.
What proof do you have that they are nonexistent?

Science is the act of discovering and understanding what God created for us and nothing more.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#55 Aug 23, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!! SERIOUSLY???? Like how religious folks believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that people rode around on dinosaurs???
Yeah, those religious folks are all about the science stuff, aren't they??
I don't know any religious people that believes people rode around on dinosaurs. That might be more of an atheist position than that of a religious one.

Sure religious people accept science. Science is taught in religious private schools. How many public schools teach religion? If anything, people have fought to keep religion out of their children's sight in public schools. Some students even kicked out of school for even hinting things of religious nature.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#56 Aug 23, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know any religious people that believes people rode around on dinosaurs.

Sure religious people accept science.
I do.

You mean the ones that want Intelligent Design taught in schools???

Yeah, right.

Since: Dec 08

Juárez, Mexico

#57 Aug 23, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know any religious people that believes people rode around on dinosaurs. That might be more of an atheist position than that of a religious one.
Sure religious people accept science. Science is taught in religious private schools. How many public schools teach religion? If anything, people have fought to keep religion out of their children's sight in public schools. Some students even kicked out of school for even hinting things of religious nature.
I believe the supposed Christian folks have a museum based on supposed intelligent design pushing the 60,000 year old earth thinking. Guess where it's located, Kentucky, home to brilliant thinkers.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#59 Aug 23, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
I do.
You mean the ones that want Intelligent Design taught in schools???
Yeah, right.
So what do you have against choice? Isn't choice the American way?

If people do not want religion even mentioned in their school, why don't they fund the school entirely? Why do they need and depend on the taxpayer money from people that desire religion to be taught in school?

In real America, all taxpayers should have a voice. In liberal America, only one voice is heard: theirs.

This is why we need (especially here in Ohio) a more fair taxation system when it comes to education. if you have children in public school, then you fund it. If you don't and desire your children to be taught something else, you should not have to pay into the public school system. Then the people that are paying and do have kids in those schools can run it the way they desire. That's fair.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#60 Aug 24, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So what do you have against choice? Isn't choice the American way?
If people do not want religion even mentioned in their school, why don't they fund the school entirely? Why do they need and depend on the taxpayer money from people that desire religion to be taught in school?
In real America, all taxpayers should have a voice. In liberal America, only one voice is heard: theirs.
This is why we need (especially here in Ohio) a more fair taxation system when it comes to education. if you have children in public school, then you fund it. If you don't and desire your children to be taught something else, you should not have to pay into the public school system. Then the people that are paying and do have kids in those schools can run it the way they desire. That's fair.
Right and those that don't have kids should pay no taxes. You and your ilk would then get your way, total destruction of our public school system. You can shove that thinking right up where the sun doesn't shine.

The benefit of our public school system far, far outweighs the cost. And no we're not going to pay for your religious education. You folks are more like the Taliban than not, and should be treated with absolute scorn.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#61 Aug 24, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Right and those that don't have kids should pay no taxes. You and your ilk would then get your way, total destruction of our public school system. You can shove that thinking right up where the sun doesn't shine.
The benefit of our public school system far, far outweighs the cost. And no we're not going to pay for your religious education. You folks are more like the Taliban than not, and should be treated with absolute scorn.
Wait a minute. What you're saying is that it's fair to charge people for something they are not going to get, and unfair to not charge them for something they are not going to get?

If that's the definitions of fair and unfair, shouldn't you be making the payments on my house that you'll never live in?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#62 Aug 24, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute. What you're saying is that it's fair to charge people for something they are not going to get, and unfair to not charge them for something they are not going to get?
If that's the definitions of fair and unfair, shouldn't you be making the payments on my house that you'll never live in?
So if you've never had a fire you shouldn't pay for a fire department? You've never been robbed, why have police. You don't drive, why pay to have streets? And the list can go on and on.

Life's not fair, get over it.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#63 Aug 24, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So what do you have against choice? Isn't choice the American way?
If people do not want religion even mentioned in their school, why don't they fund the school entirely? Why do they need and depend on the taxpayer money from people that desire religion to be taught in school?
In real America, all taxpayers should have a voice. In liberal America, only one voice is heard: theirs.
This is why we need (especially here in Ohio) a more fair taxation system when it comes to education. if you have children in public school, then you fund it. If you don't and desire your children to be taught something else, you should not have to pay into the public school system. Then the people that are paying and do have kids in those schools can run it the way they desire. That's fair.
Only peer reviewed, proven science should be taught in American schools. Even likely theories should be mentioned, not pseudoscience theories. Schools don't teach palm reading either.

We do need a more fair and balanced taxation system, Churches should pay taxes like anyone else. If people really want their children to receive theistic teachings, they can take them to church or pony up the dough to send them to a "Christian Academy" which doesn't really translate to the real world. But hey, the parents can decide for the kids until they old enough to decide for themselves.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#64 Aug 24, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
Only peer reviewed, proven science should be taught in American schools. Even likely theories should be mentioned, not pseudoscience theories. Schools don't teach palm reading either.
We do need a more fair and balanced taxation system, Churches should pay taxes like anyone else. If people really want their children to receive theistic teachings, they can take them to church or pony up the dough to send them to a "Christian Academy" which doesn't really translate to the real world. But hey, the parents can decide for the kids until they old enough to decide for themselves.
We can agree there. The problem though is that parents who use that option have to pay both: private school for their children, and public school for the children of other people. Most parents can't afford both.

This is why I believe the best option for children is allow the parents to decide where their education dollars will go. It's only fair.

My sister sent both her children to private Catholic school. Between that and college, she's in debt until the day she retires if not longer. Over here, over half of our property taxes support those schools whether you agree with their teachings or not.

Her financial burdens would be far less if she could have used her own money to educate her children and not her neighbors as well. Of course, if we had a system of choice, the public education would eventually be a thing of the past since most parents would take the better option of private schooling.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#65 Aug 24, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you've never had a fire you shouldn't pay for a fire department? You've never been robbed, why have police. You don't drive, why pay to have streets? And the list can go on and on.
Life's not fair, get over it.
Apples and oranges.

I know that I may need the fire department or police one day. I know that I have no use for the public schools I currently support.

In more rural areas, people have the option to fund their fire department or not. If they opt not to, the fire department will not give them any aid. The volunteer fire department might show up to help the neighbors or their property because of your fire, but they will not help you. In other rural areas, if the fire department does come out, they charge you accordingly. If you never have a fire, you never receive a bill. Need an ambulance in Cleveland? They send you a bill for their services.

Everybody uses our roads be it a personal vehicle, a bus, or an Amish buggy, but we all need roads. Nobody can do without them whether you drive or not.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#66 Aug 24, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Apples and oranges.
I know that I may need the fire department or police one day. I know that I have no use for the public schools I currently support.
In more rural areas, people have the option to fund their fire department or not. If they opt not to, the fire department will not give them any aid. The volunteer fire department might show up to help the neighbors or their property because of your fire, but they will not help you. In other rural areas, if the fire department does come out, they charge you accordingly. If you never have a fire, you never receive a bill. Need an ambulance in Cleveland? They send you a bill for their services.
Everybody uses our roads be it a personal vehicle, a bus, or an Amish buggy, but we all need roads. Nobody can do without them whether you drive or not.
And no one should be without an education. It leads to them getting jobs which leads to the public and private good for all citizens. Apples and apples.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#67 Aug 25, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Apples and oranges.
I know that I may need the fire department or police one day. I know that I have no use for the public schools I currently support.....
What you're missing is that the main reason we HAVE a public school system is because EVERYONE benefits when the population is more educated.

The Teabaggers are perfect example of what happens when you get large groups of people that are ignorant of things as simple as how our government works or what our Constitution says. They're all screaming and crying about how our evil government is violating their constitutional rights and they have no idea what those rights even are or how they work. And if you ask for examples of their rights being violated, they can't give any. They just sputter and spit and jump up and down because they're really REALLY angry!!! They have no idea what they're angry, but they sure are ANGRY!!!!

One of the reasons secular religious groups like the Amish and the rest of the extreme fundamentalist groups (Christian, Islam, Judaism--they're all the same) shun education is because they know full well that keeping their membership ignorant will make it much more difficult for those members to leave the group and it makes them much easier to control. People that can think for themselves, often DO.

The basic education that's offered by our public school system benefits EVERYONE. If you choose to bypass that system and opt instead for a religious-based school or some other privately funded option, that's fine for you and you're free to do that. But you can't use that as an excuse to not pay into the public school system because you DO, in fact, benefit from it, even if you don't send your kid there.
The Troll Stopper

Blacksburg, VA

#68 Aug 25, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
What you're missing is that the main reason we HAVE a public school system is because EVERYONE benefits when the population is more educated.
The Teabaggers are perfect example of what happens when you get large groups of people that are ignorant of things as simple as how our government works or what our Constitution says. They're all screaming and crying about how our evil government is violating their constitutional rights and they have no idea what those rights even are or how they work. And if you ask for examples of their rights being violated, they can't give any. They just sputter and spit and jump up and down because they're really REALLY angry!!! They have no idea what they're angry, but they sure are ANGRY!!!!
One of the reasons secular religious groups like the Amish and the rest of the extreme fundamentalist groups (Christian, Islam, Judaism--they're all the same) shun education is because they know full well that keeping their membership ignorant will make it much more difficult for those members to leave the group and it makes them much easier to control. People that can think for themselves, often DO.
The basic education that's offered by our public school system benefits EVERYONE. If you choose to bypass that system and opt instead for a religious-based school or some other privately funded option, that's fine for you and you're free to do that. But you can't use that as an excuse to not pay into the public school system because you DO, in fact, benefit from it, even if you don't send your kid there.
Good points, all. Now can we PLEASE get back on topic?
The Daylight

Los Angeles, CA

#69 Aug 25, 2014
How can any Marriage be defined as such without determining and then defining the relationship it's founded upon?
What will ultimately be defined as "valid" types of relationships to found a legally binding marriage upon, by the states? Precise definitions ARE possible as you can see by the fairly precise definition of an "emotional sexual relationship"
That has actually been addressed many times on this thread, to no avail or progress.
Clarity is always a good way to begin to solve any problem; if clarity and honesty are no longer acceptable then it's time to buy guns, so let's try honesty and real information from real sources from lots of good folks who have DONE THE WORK to bring us this life-giving KNOWLEDGE.

Intimate relationship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy. Physical intimacy is characterized by romantic or passionate attachment or sexual activity. While the term intimate relationship commonly implies the inclusion of a sexual relationship, the term is also used as a euphemism for a relationship that is strictly sexual."

"Intimate relationships play a central role in the overall human experience. Humans have a general desire to belong and to love, which is usually satisfied within an intimate relationship. These relationships involve feelings of liking or loving one or more people, romance, physical or sexual attraction, sexual relationships, or emotional and personal support between the members. Intimate relationships allow a social network for people to form strong emotional attachments."
......
"Distinguishing intimate (communal) relationships from strategic (exchange) relationships may also be a factor. Physical intimacy occurs in the latter but it is governed by a higher-order strategy, of which the other person may not be aware. One example is getting close to someone in order to get something from them or give them something. That "something" might not be offered so freely if it did not appear to be an intimate exchange and if the ultimate strategy had been visible at the outset. Mills and Clark (1982) found that strategic (exchange) relationships are fragile and easily break down when there is any level of disagreement. Emotionally intimate (communal) relationships are much more robust and can survive considerable (and even ongoing) disagreements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relatio...
http://www.coursesmart.com/intimate-relations...
My GAWD there is a lot of research and ideology in this!
103 bucks for the 8th Edition!
I can tell right now there is NO WAY to study state-legalized gay marriage without learning about how families are SUPPOSED to work.

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.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lawsuit nixed against Kentucky clerk who fought... Aug 22 WeTheSheeple 36
News Kwame Kilpatrick pleads not guilty in rambling ... Jul '16 Sleeper 1
News Railroad Not Liable for Disgusting Bathroom, Tr... May '16 Half It All 2
News Tea party activists hail federal appeals court ... Apr '16 Paris 3
News St. Paul Vice Cop Reprimanded By Federal Judge Mar '16 ambientbake 1
News High court rejects farmer who tangled with Tyson (Jan '11) Jan '16 Swedenforever 8
News Attorneys: Cleveland dodging payment on $19M in... (Jan '16) Jan '16 skinner 2
More from around the web