Gay Marriage Debate - Whitehall, PA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Whitehall, PA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Whitehall opposes
Oppose
 
7
Support
 
5

Vote now in Whitehall:

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#1 Mar 9, 2011
Gay marriage is not fundamental to our existence and therefore does not qualify for benefits
Jessie

Nazareth, PA

#2 Jan 18, 2012
No one should be able to tell anyone who they can or can't love

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#3 Jan 18, 2012
Nobody is telling anyone who to love
Kameron

Schnecksville, PA

#4 Jan 18, 2012
Love is a four letter word. L-o-v-e. It says nothing about whether man and man should be together, nor women and man. The only reason people believe that is because people created that false image in there heads.
Jayme

Pittsburgh, PA

#5 Jan 19, 2012
Honest AbeL wrote:
Gay marriage is not fundamental to our existence and therefore does not qualify for benefits
actually, no marriage is fundamental. you do not need to be married to reproduce. there are literally millions of unmarried couples. there is no difference between same sex marriage and straight marriage, other than the sex of the couple involved. if a gay couple can't get married, then straight couples should not be permitted to. if straight marriage is so fundamental to our existence, why not force every single unmarried couple to be wed on the night of their first date? i mean, it's so fundamental, why not just do it right away before we mess up the order of things?
and what are these "benefits" you speak of? surely not the benefit of seeing your significant other if he or she is in the hospital! or taking bereavement if he or she is to die! or even worse! being able to make financial or medical decisions on his or her behalf! oh, the horror!

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#6 Jan 20, 2012
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. It is a quote from Loving v Virginia
Jayme wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, no marriage is fundamental. you do not need to be married to reproduce. there are literally millions of unmarried couples. there is no difference between same sex marriage and straight marriage, other than the sex of the couple involved. if a gay couple can't get married, then straight couples should not be permitted to. if straight marriage is so fundamental to our existence, why not force every single unmarried couple to be wed on the night of their first date? i mean, it's so fundamental, why not just do it right away before we mess up the order of things?
and what are these "benefits" you speak of? surely not the benefit of seeing your significant other if he or she is in the hospital! or taking bereavement if he or she is to die! or even worse! being able to make financial or medical decisions on his or her behalf! oh, the horror!
Jayme

Pittsburgh, PA

#7 Jan 20, 2012
Honest AbeL wrote:
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. It is a quote from Loving v Virginia
<quoted text>
loving v. virginia enabled interracial marriages. using a quote from a civil rights case to show that you are anti-civil rights is, for lack of better words, stupid and backwards.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#8 Jan 20, 2012
Try reading the case so you don't continue on your path of complete ignorance
Jayme wrote:
<quoted text>
loving v. virginia enabled interracial marriages. using a quote from a civil rights case to show that you are anti-civil rights is, for lack of better words, stupid and backwards.
Jayme

Pittsburgh, PA

#9 Jan 20, 2012
Honest AbeL wrote:
Try reading the case so you don't continue on your path of complete ignorance
<quoted text>
"Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."
"In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriages in the United States."
"On June 12, 1967, the nation's highest court voted unanimously to overturn the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving, a young interracial couple from rural Caroline County, Va. That decision struck down the anti-miscegenation laws written to prevent the mixing of the races that were on the books at the time in more than a dozen states, including Virginia."

and, directly from chief justice warren:
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed."

you were saying?

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#10 Jan 20, 2012
and Skinner tells us why it is fundamental.

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.
Jayme wrote:
<quoted text>
"Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."
"In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriages in the United States."
"On June 12, 1967, the nation's highest court voted unanimously to overturn the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving, a young interracial couple from rural Caroline County, Va. That decision struck down the anti-miscegenation laws written to prevent the mixing of the races that were on the books at the time in more than a dozen states, including Virginia."
and, directly from chief justice warren:
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed."
you were saying?
Jayme

Pittsburgh, PA

#11 Jan 20, 2012
Honest AbeL wrote:
and Skinner tells us why it is fundamental.
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.
<quoted text>
you are correct. it is a right to be married. it is a right to procreate. but it is not a requirement to procreate. you need not procreate to live. i have no plans of having children. that doesn't mean i will die immediately, and the coroner's report will read "did not reproduce".
if you are opposed to same sex marriage on the basis that they cannot procreate, how do you feel about infertile couples getting married? or couples who do not want children getting married?
there are many, many couples who do not reproduce. the human race is not anywhere close to extinction.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#12 Jan 20, 2012
Marriage was a privilege granted in order to create a more permanent bound between mother, father, and children. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with two guys or gals playing house. You seem to forget that even as recent as the loving verdict gay meant happy and nobody even thought that two people of the same sex would marry. By the way then fag was a cigarette.
Jayme wrote:
<quoted text>
you are correct. it is a right to be married. it is a right to procreate. but it is not a requirement to procreate. you need not procreate to live. i have no plans of having children. that doesn't mean i will die immediately, and the coroner's report will read "did not reproduce".
if you are opposed to same sex marriage on the basis that they cannot procreate, how do you feel about infertile couples getting married? or couples who do not want children getting married?
there are many, many couples who do not reproduce. the human race is not anywhere close to extinction.

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.

Whitehall Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cell tower in whitaker what ? Dec 14 No One Cares. 2
Will Coach Shar win a State Championship at TJ? (May '13) Dec 14 TJ Phil 10
is Mick Price the new Ned Mervos? (Jun '13) Dec 13 Truth Cop 29
Investigation: Despite Raising Taxes, West Miff... Dec 13 Med Nervos 5
WM school tax bill WTF Dec 13 Santa 18
craigslist Dec 13 Santa 3
Is Phil Shar as bad as Pat Risha? (Jan '13) Dec 13 Staggy 66
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]