Gay marriage ban upheld

[JulesMaximus]

As I lean conservative, I'm just going to say this is the most likely thing that will happen.

I'm not a fan of LGBT people in general (they seem odd to me) and don't like seeing it/hearing about it daily from news websites like www.cnn.com. But at some point the conservative side of me says there isn't a reason why these people shouldn't be allowed to be married. It does go against the freedom our founding fathers envisioned. I'd rather have that freedom there even if I don't particularly like it.

On the flip side, I hope liberals also feel the same way about gun rights, etc. Which of course is already in our constitution, so really it's not on the same peg of the totem pole, but I think the spirit of freedom should encompass all things.

Well, homosexuals don't go around killing people with their gayness.

That said, I'm in the middle on gun control. Some control is necessary and probably even some limitations.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Agree to disagree. I think you're just being obtuse at this point. Trying to hide behind morality to excuse discrimination - whether interracial marriage, gay marriage, segregation, or whatnot - is just making you look bad.

"I'm not racist but my morality says that black people shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else"

LOL

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well asshole, if you weren't responding to my posts with a condescending retort such as "Think about it for a while and you'll realize you're wrong and I'm right" then maybe I'd treat you with more respect.

As it stands, and in response to your first statement above: Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty pitchfork.

Paranoid much?

My reply was a 'straight' statement.

You made an off the cuff (and rather thoughtless) observation/question that with a few moments consideration of the issue would have allowed you to answer your own question. That you choose to take my pointing that out as an attack tells us a lot about you and nothing about me. Especially when you fall back on the level of discourse appropriate to someone in grade 10, foul language and personal attacks included.

You have a nice day now and watch out for rusty pitchforks.

 

[Retro Rob]

Agree to disagree. I think you're just being obtuse at this point. Trying to hide behind morality to excuse discrimination - whether interracial marriage, gay marriage, segregation, or whatnot - is just making you look bad.

Please, show me where I said morality is an excuse for discrimination, please.

What I said was that it isn't about who you "love" -- I never said it was OK to discriminate for moral reasons. If anything, I said despite my personal morals, I support TAX PAYING CITIZENS getting the same rights all around as everyone else.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm showing how liberals only rely on strawmen and false equivocations to demonize and caricature anyone who dares disagree with them.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Ok I get it. You're trolling. Funny. You got me.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok I get it. You're trolling. Funny. You got me.

Bowing out because you cannot prove the accusations you've levied against me?

OK, I get it. Tuck your tail between your legs and hide behind being "trolled".

You have every opportunity to substantiate your allegations.

 

[doubledeluxe]

You're a master troll. Bait and dodge. Bait and dodge. I salute you.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're a master troll. Bait and dodge. Bait and dodge. I salute you.

You're a master fool, bafoon, meathead, and obvious LIAR to boot.

I salute you.

 

[doubledeluxe]

You tried to excuse discrimination due to moral objections. LOL

Apparently you are not familiar with equal rights or that the USSC has already addressed the issue.

The USSC told the bigots in Congress that they cannot use religious morality to deprive US citizens of equal rights.

Using your religious morality to impose inequality is wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

You tried to excuse discrimination due to moral objections. LOL

Where did I do this?...all you have to do is show me the quote in which I explicitly said its OK to discriminate against gays on moral grounds.

I haven't edited any of my past posts...all you have to do is quote it.

Apparently you are not familiar with equal rights or that the USSC has already addressed the issue.

You're aren't familiar with showing someone where they did what you claim the did.

The USSC told the bigots in Congress that they cannot use religious morality to deprive US citizens of equal rights.

I told my wife I bought a beer. That has just as much to do with your claims against me as what SCOTUS told Congress.

Using your religious morality to impose inequality is wrong.

Its apparent that you're going to double-down on your own ignorance and stupidity instead of simply quoting me to back up your claims.

And you wonder why I think you're a fool.

 

[sportage]

I wish the lawyers would first insist this be heard by the full 6th circuit court before going onto the US Supremes. I think the full 6th circuit would probably overturn the ruling.
I mean, what do they have to lose?
Then if that fails, that this to the US Supremes.

This entire marriage equality thing is getting pretty ridiculous.
There is absolutely no reason not to have SS marriage nation wide.

When Utah was having their meltdown over the issue and kept taking it to the courts, I followed the Utah local news papers closely. The best source of information on what was really going on in that state.

Now.... that SS marriage has been settled in Utah, nothing... not one single article appears in any of these Utah news papers concerning marriage equality.
WHY???
Because marriage, all marriage, is very personal.
Shit... it's just two people getting married.
Whats the F-ing big deal here?

It's like people getting all pissy and upset over the color of car you decide on in the showroom. Or whether you prefer red wine or white wine with your meal.
WHO THE FUCK CARES?????

SS marriage, once allowed and legal in a state, the issue goes away. Poof!!! All gone.
Because, no one cares who you marry.
And rightly so, it is no ones business.
No more than the color or wine you prefer with a meal or the color of car you drive.

The religious right DO NOT own marriage. Plain and simple.
Marriage in the United States is totally personal and not connected to religion, or the bible, or ideology, what so ever.

People should take note that after SS marriage is settled in a state, you hear not one more thing about it in that state. Why? BECAUSE IT'S PERSONAL.
And it is absolutely no ones business except the two (and their families) that wish to marry.

And for anyone to get sooooo upset and outraged over marriage equality boils down to nothing more that BIGOTRY. And one groups desire to control another group.
And is that not the great American pastime?
Who the hell should care who marries who or which color of automobile they prefer?

This is nutz.....
If America didn't have its collective head up their ass, SS marriage would not be an issue.

 

[infoiltrator]

People are people, gay people are people. People get married.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh fuck off.

Well he is right....

After all, thats pretty much exactly how it happens right now except for the quick trip to get a license.

Can you explain why that license/permission from the state is so very necessary?

 

[Pulsar]

No one really cares who one "loves", or has sex with...it's about whether or not gay marriage is morally right in the eyes of most opponents

Did you type that with a straight face, or did you crack a grin when you made a statement then contradicted it all within the same sentence?

 

[shira]

That is a good question and I am glad you asked.

One example, gay men make up 2% of the population, but make up 52% of hiv cases.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ent-of-Population-But-52-Percent-of-HIV-Cases

If this was any other demographic the CDC would be freaking out. Congress would be acting to pass stricter laws to prevent the spread of disease.

If 52% of E. Coli came from a certain meat processing plant, chances are the plant would be shut down.

If 52% of a certain town developed a rare cancer, holy hell the EPA would be acting.

Yet we are supposed to tolerate a certain demographic making up the majority of spreading an incurable disease?

Sex does not equal marriage, but they share the same behavior, which is male on male sex.

So by your reasoning, since lesbians have the lowest HIV rate of ANY group (because woman-on-woman sex is the lowest risk sex of all) - and because we know how incredibly principled you are with your arguments, you are of course the country's strongest advocate for legalization of same-sex marriage for women.

 

[shira]

My thoughts exactly. Let Churches decide who gets married and who doesn't. The Government would just recognize civil unions for tax purposes.

- Merg

I don't think that recognition of marriages can be as simple as you prefer. For example, should the government recognize for "tax purposes" a "poly marriage" consisting of 4000 people? (And what would be the tax bracket for a joint return for this married group?) What about health insurance plans? Must a company offer group coverage to all spouses and children in a poly marriage involving one of its employees? What about the effects of huge poly marriages on immigration law? On Social Security spousal benefits? On government pensions?

It's fairly simple to extend heterosexual marriage rules to same-sex couples, but as soon as more than two individuals can be involved in a marriage, rules break down.

 

[shira]

Really? Don't guess you have seen these studies?

http://gawker.com/master-bedroom-extra-closet-the-truth-about-gay-marri-514348538



http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...mous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

So your point is that if it's established that some social, ethnic, religious, or political group has a rate of extra-marital sex greater than some threshold value, members of that group should be banned from marrying?

Please tell us what the threshold value is?

 

[shira]

Um..... seeing as you are a complete and UTTER failure at marriage and parenting, why do you think anybody should give a fuck what you think? I am dead serious. You have no idea what it takes to make a good marriage as evidenced by your personal life. Your opinion on marriage is therefor of absolutely no value.

Clearly, anyone who has been divorced more than once should be banned from ever marrying again, since their behavior demonstrates a contempt for the institution of marraige. I'm sure Texas Piker heartily agrees.

 

[The Merg]

I don't think that recognition of marriages can be as simple as you prefer. For example, should the government recognize for "tax purposes" a "poly marriage" consisting of 4000 people? (And what would be the tax bracket for a joint return for this married group?) What about health insurance plans? Must a company offer group coverage to all spouses and children in a poly marriage involving one of its employees? What about the effects of huge poly marriages on immigration law? On Social Security spousal benefits? On government pensions?

It's fairly simple to extend heterosexual marriage rules to same-sex couples, but as soon as more than two individuals can be involved in a marriage, rules break down.

I looked at it that a civil union would be between 2 people.

- Merg

 

[bradly1101]

As I lean conservative, I'm just going to say this is the most likely thing that will happen.

I'm not a fan of LGBT people in general (they seem odd to me) and don't like seeing it/hearing about it daily from news websites like www.cnn.com. But at some point the conservative side of me says there isn't a reason why these people shouldn't be allowed to be married. It does go against the freedom our founding fathers envisioned. I'd rather have that freedom there even if I don't particularly like it.

On the flip side, I hope liberals also feel the same way about gun rights, etc. Which of course is already in our constitution, so really it's not on the same peg of the totem pole, but I think the spirit of freedom should encompass all things.

 

[sportage]

The US Supreme Court