patrick.net

chanakya4773 says

mell says

Yeah, and from the hearings I gleaned that the judges were pondering about how this may have to be extended to other lifestyles and flood the courts. So they see these as similar issues, that's all.

we are all ( including judges ) on the same page...except hypocrites who think gay couples are different than sibling couples.

By that logic, are homosexual couples different from heterosexual couples?
Interracial? International/multi-lingual? Thin couples? Fat couples?

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

The issue before the courts, right now, is homosexual marriage. Remember change is generally slow and steady. You are correct, that if gay marriage rights are extended it strengthens a case to be made for other couple types to also have marriage rights. Those civil rights movements will run their course if there is a significant portion of society affected or in that class of people being discriminated against.

So far, doesn't seem like society is ready to

then why are there so many idiots and hypocrites that somehow project that incestual marriage is not a natural progression of gay marriage ?

It confuses me too because homosexual marriage was obviously a natural progression from heterosexual marriage.

Rew says

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

Pretty much (for consenting adults) IF it is regulated by the government. If the government gets out and rescinds all the regulations around marriage then we would be done long ago. Also you cannot even narrow it down to 2 people only, one person could have multiple marriages at the same time. One more reason for the government to get out completely.

mell says

Rew says

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

Pretty much (for consenting adults) IF it is regulated by the government. If the government gets out and rescinds all the regulations around marriage then we would be done long ago. Also you cannot even narrow it down to 2 people only, one person could have multiple marriages at the same time. One more reason for the government to get out completely.

This argument basically boils down to : 'you cannot define anything, everything is everything'.

A very zen way to look at life.

Rew says

The issue before the courts, right now, is homosexual marriage. Remember change
is generally slow and steady

I would argue that change is not that slow and steady.

Liberals have been trying to divorce (no pun intended) procreation from marriage for at least 3 decades now and look at the absolute ruin it has done in terms of the skyrocketing out of wedlock birthrate in America. The African American community alone has over 70% of their children being born to single parents AND GUARANTEED POVERTY. The breakdown of the family is the single biggest driver of crime, poverty and ignorance. We were told for years that a "good" single mother (with possible help from an aunt, parent or grandparent) is just as good as raising kids as the traditional nuclear family.

The only reason the State is interested in marriage in the first place (giving tax breaks to parents etc.) is to encourage stable families and procreation and future tax payers. That's all.

So for all of the gay marriage advocates who are trying to draw distinctions between gay marriage, polygamy, incest or whatever - you need to become consistent and let us know if procreation is an issue with marriage or not. If procreation is not an issue with marriage, there is no reason we can't call any human relationship a "marriage" if the people involved desire it.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

It confuses me too because homosexual marriage was obviously a natural progression from heterosexual marriage.

I don't think hetro-sexual behavior was EVER deviant (since civilization started). The progression can only happen from normal to deviancy.

homosexual behaviour/incest..etc were prevalent in old times but were always considered deviant (in some cases legal as well)

Wait, who decided what was deviant when?

The Greeks would argue strongly for what was deviant in their time too. Remember, for good Spartan soldiers, the norm was some man-loving out in the trenches. Having to go back to your wife, and sleep with her to procreate ... was simply duty ... and not considered as strong or as important a relationship as any you would have had with your would be Spartan warrior lovers out in the field.

So where would you like to start counting deviant behavior from exactly?

Homosexuality has been part of human culture for as long as we can comfortably measure. Doesn't seem like it is a deviant behavior but more rather a norm.

Rew says

mell says

Rew says

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

Pretty much (for consenting adults) IF it is regulated by the government. If the government gets out and rescinds all the regulations around marriage then we would be done long ago. Also you cannot even narrow it down to 2 people only, one person could have multiple marriages at the same time. One more reason for the government to get out completely.

This argument basically boils down to : 'you cannot define anything, everything is everything'.

A very zen way to look at life.

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

socal2 says

So for all of the gay marriage advocates who are trying to draw distinctions between gay marriage, polygamy, incest or whatever - you need to become consistent and let us know if procreation is an issue with marriage or not. If procreation is not an issue with marriage, there is no reason we can't call any human relationship a "marriage" if the people involved desire it.

That's true. It depends on how you want to define the purpose of marriage. What do you want to define it as? (It isn't procreation, because 50 year olds readily marry one another, with no intent of having children.)

How about simply: a unique life bond between two people with the intent to strengthen and care for one another, as such caring benefits and strengthens society as well.

If you want to argue for more people, dogs, cats, staplers to be included ... ok ... but you may have to wait a bit until the rest of society catches up to your all inclusive vision.

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

Rew says

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

(WAIT A MINUTE: incestual couples are afforded this right already!)

Rew says

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

This should go into a personal contract between the two partners that they can carry with them when needed or that can be looked up by medical record or domestic partnership registration or any similar means. Heterosexual married couples should not have that right in the first place just because they are married.

mell says

Rew says

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

This should go into a personal contract between the two partners that they can carry with them when needed or that can be looked up by medical record or domestic partnership registration or any similar means. Heterosexual married couples should not have that right in the first place just because they are married.

Call it whatever the heck you want, and regulate it however, as long as it affords every single right a heterosexual couple receives to a homosexual couple and is viewed as equitable in eyes of law and citizenry.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

Society can decide the legality of one thing without also extending the legality of that to something else.

How do they do that ? how exactly will you deny rights to sibling couples while giving it to gay couple..

Do you believe gay couple are same as sibling couple or not ?

You do it like this: "Are you of blood relation and if so by what degree?" You want to get really big-brother about it: you do a simple genetic test. This is the "how".

I do not believe gay couples are the same as sibling couples just like I do not believe heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples. They are different.

The question is should homosexual couples and heterosexual couples be afforded the same rights of marriage?

Women and men, races, etc. all different : but seen as equal in law and rights. If you pretend to claim that my belief the women/men/races are different makes me bigoted or discriminatory you are wrong. You would have to accuse me of showing prejudicial treatment of one of the groups. Discrimination is about action and treating things differently.

Giving rights to one group doesn't mean you MUST give rights to another. We do not allow felons to vote or own a firearm. We stripped them of those rights and they are no longer equal under the eyes of the law and treatment. We make choices like this.

So...
- You either support the right of gay marriage or you do not.
- You support the right of incest marriage or not.
- You support the right of bestial marriage or not.
- You support the right of polygamy or not.
- You support the right of heterosexual marriage or not.

Accepting one does not mean you must accept them all. They are not equivalent but they are related. If at their basis they are found to be deserving the same treatment under the eyes of the law, then they are. The courts and people decide it and then it becomes so.

I support gay rights. I agree that what you do in your bed is your business. Gay people should have same right as the others. What I don't get is overloading of the word "marriage". Why insist on calling it marriage? If you want social acceptance you cannot and should not want to hide your relationship. So you need a word which describes the relationship exactly.
I propose adding 2 more words to the English language: Lerry and Gayrry. So you are either lerried, gayrried or married.

likeu says

I propose adding 2 more words to the English language: Lerry and Gayrry.

Same-sex couples have been getting married for a very long time outside the USA (FKA "the land of the free"), and none of those places saw any need to change their language, or their Constitutions, to stop calling it that. The real question is why insist on not calling it marriage, and the answer is because that insistence kept certain people voting for Republicans' deficit-driven wars all over the world, but now most Americans support same-sex marriage, which is why the Democratic party signed on to support it.

The Original Bankster says

I also think most of what LGBT is promoting is perverted and sick.

Ah, but what exactly to you think is perverted and sick, and more importantly, why?

Dan8267 says

why?

Try clicking his website link below his avatar, and you'll see. Some people need to blame others for their own misery, so they need "others" to H8. It is also related to their insecurities and failure: Gene Hackman's character in Mississippi Burning sums it up when he asks rhetorically, "If you ain't better than a [pick your choice of word from bankster's website], who are you better than?"

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

why?

Try clicking his website link below his avatar, and you'll see. Some people need to blame others for their own misery, so they need "others" to H8.

Damn, that's fucked up. Why would someone use the URL http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=nigger,faggot as their "My Website" link in a forum. Granted, it's obfuscated by a URL rewriter (shortener), but it's still such a pointless thing to do.

But you are correct in that it reveals a lot about his bigotry. And it's no coincidence that it's always the same group of Americans who
- were for slavery
- were against letting blacks own property
- were against letting blacks vote
- were against letting women own property
- were against letting women vote
- were against interracial marriages
- are against same-sex marriages
- are for all the wars over the past 13 years
- are for torture
- are for warrantless wiretaps
- are for removing the right to Habeas Corpus
- are for drone strikes
- are for assassinations

And it always seems to come down to this map...

Green is good. Red and brown are bad.

In fact, the above map and many virtually identical to it, have pretty much describe the morality and lack thereof in America from 1700 to 2013. Some parts of the country simply haven't changed in three hundred years.

Now, I don't know if The Original Bankster comes from those red and brown areas, but there's a pretty good chance his family roots do.

why would anyone listen to anything from a bunch of angry anonymous people on the internet?

Rew says

That's true. It depends on how you want to define the purpose of marriage. What do you want to define it as? (It isn't procreation, because 50 year olds readily marry one another, with no intent of having children.)

I believe over 80% of US marriages end up producing kids and future tax payers. The vast majority of marriages are done by young and fertile couples.

I don't think it is a strong argument to point to a tiny minority of elderly, gay or straight couples who can't (or won't) procreate as enough reason to change the historic definition of marriage.

Rew says

Call it whatever the heck you want, and regulate it however, as long as it affords every single right a heterosexual couple receives to a homosexual couple and is viewed as equitable in eyes of law and citizenry.

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

socal2 says

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

Then get rid of all laws and contracts that use the word "marriage" and replace all such laws and contracts with the term "civil union". That includes tax filing status, survivor benefits, adoption forms, employee benefits, immigration status, etc.

As I said many times, the whole problem is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There should never have been any laws regarding marriage or any secular recognition of marriage in the first place. And there should be no "married" tax filing status either.

socal2 says

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

What if my religion says that gay people can get married?

I guess what you meant by religion was your religious views. As for marriage being about procreation.... tell that to the millions of people born out of wedlock and all the unwanted children that are unwanted by heterosexual people.

Dan8267 says

Then get rid of all laws and contracts that use the word "marriage" and replace all such laws and contracts with the term "civil union". That includes tax filing status, survivor benefits, adoption forms, employee benefits, immigration status, etc.

As I said many times, the whole problem is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There should never have been any laws regarding marriage or any secular recognition of marriage in the first place. And there should be no "married" tax filing status either.

As I pointed out earlier, the State does have a vested interest in subsidizing stable families to raise future tax payers. That is the ONLY reason the government is in the marriage business.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

Then get rid of all laws and contracts that use the word "marriage" and replace all such laws and contracts with the term "civil union". That includes tax filing status, survivor benefits, adoption forms, employee benefits, immigration status, etc.

As I said many times, the whole problem is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There should never have been any laws regarding marriage or any secular recognition of marriage in the first place. And there should be no "married" tax filing status either.

This exactly. But if it is here to stay, then you better extend to a reasonable section of the population, and it cannot be handed out in a discriminatory manner.

socal2 says

Rew says

That's true. It depends on how you want to define the purpose of marriage. What do you want to define it as? (It isn't procreation, because 50 year olds readily marry one another, with no intent of having children.)

I believe over 80% of US marriages end up producing kids and future tax payers. The vast majority of marriages are done by young and fertile couples.

I don't think it is a strong argument to point to a tiny minority of elderly, gay or straight couples who can't (or won't) procreate as enough reason to change the historic definition of marriage.

When is the last time you have heard wedding vows talking about right to reproduction or intent to have children?

evilmonkeyboy says

As for marriage being about procreation.... tell that to the millions of people born out of wedlock and all the unwanted children that are unwanted by heterosexual people.

I know it is absolutely tragic.

We separated marriage from procreation and now we have a big freaking mess on our hands. American illegitimacy rates went from single digits 30 years ago to over 40% today...and up to 70% for African Americans. All that contraception, abortion and government welfare has done miracles for the American family in the past 30 years - hasn't it?

We changed the definition of marriage away from raising stable families to being all about the "rights" and "needs" of the couple - and we are surprised at the destruction of the family?

Despite this massive (and relatively sudden) increase in illegitimacy that has doomed generations of kids to poverty and crime, some pro-gay marriage advocates really seem surprised that some of us may be warry of tinkering with the marriage institution even further away from procreation?

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Then get rid of all laws and contracts that use the word "marriage" and replace all such laws and contracts with the term "civil union". That includes tax filing status, survivor benefits, adoption forms, employee benefits, immigration status, etc.

As I said many times, the whole problem is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There should never have been any laws regarding marriage or any secular recognition of marriage in the first place. And there should be no "married" tax filing status either.

As I pointed out earlier, the State does have a vested interest in subsidizing stable families to raise future tax payers. That is the ONLY reason the government is in the marriage business.

Stable families also adopt right?

socal2 says

We changed the definition of marriage away from raising stable families to being all about the "rights" and "needs"

Then strip off the other rights associate with marriage. Only allow tax benefit to those with children (biological or adopted).

Stable families come in all shapes and sizes.

socal2 says

We separated marriage from procreation and now we have a big freaking mess on our hands

Who is we? and when did you do this? If by we you mean the automobile and equal rights for women then, I guess I understand what you are trying to say.

Should gay people add to society by raising their own children or adopting children that are unwanted? Yes! Or at least that is what my wife, daughter and I believe. By the way we are on the right side of history!

socal2 says

As I pointed out earlier, the State does have a vested interest in subsidizing stable families to raise future tax payers. That is the ONLY reason the government is in the marriage business.

Hardly. The reason government is in the business of marriage is that government is run by people, and people use government to further their own social, religious, and cultural issues.

Furthermore, every future tax payer is also a future burden on the state in the form of schooling and social security. If the state simply wanted more tax payers, it would open the borders to all immigrants. You'd get tax payers without the expense of child birth hospitalization and schooling from kindergarten to college.

evilmonkeyboy says

Who is we? and when did you do this? If by we you mean the automobile and equal rights for women then, I guess I understand what you are trying to say.

Should gay people add to society by raising their own children or adopting children that are unwanted? Yes! Or at least that is what my wife, daughter and I believe. By the way we are on the right side of history!

Who is we? I guess I am talking about our culture, our government, our education system.

Do you at least agree that America's child illegitimacy rate is a complete disaster and perhaps the #1 source for a number of our major social and economic problems? I don't think we can blame it on poverty as America had much higher poverty rates in the past. Our country spends more on K-12 education per pupil than virtually all other OECD countries. We spend more now on sex education than ever and contraception and abortion are more available than ever. Yet America's illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed? Why do you think that is?

IRT to gay adoption. I totally agree that adoption by a stable and loving gay couple is better for a kid living in the slums or foster care. But one could also argue that drafting these unwanted kids into the military would be better for them than living on the streets. Not sure we want to advocate that policy though.

All things being equal between a hetero and gay couple looking to adopt a kid in terms of finances, education, background, housing, stability etc, - which couple should the State adopt the child to?

These are not easy issues. It's easy to say what's the big deal - and smugly claim you are on the right side of history. But I think past government tinkering and social engineering along with welfare policies have had some major unintended consequences to the American family - most obviously the illigetimiacy and dependency on government. Any further effort to delink marriage, procreation and taking care of a family is a bad idea - IMO.

I am all for gay couples to have all the tax benefits of married couples. Even cool with them adoption unwanted children. I think Civil Unions is a fair solution.

chanakya4773 says

Three justices' concern over gay parenting surprises experts

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-gay-parents-20130406,0,2117892.story

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said it might be wise to move slowly because gay parenting was still new.

"We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history," Kennedy said.

Douglas W. Allen, a Canadian economist, says the many positive research reports on gay parents and their children were questionable. "The samples are small and biased. The people are self-selected," he said. "If you start with a biased sample, you can't make a statement about the population as a whole."

He published data from a Canadian census survey in 2006 that found children with lesbian or gay parents were less likely to graduate from high school

What licensing, requirements, authorization, or vetting needs to occur to become a parent?

What about adopt?

Also, what have the other justices had to say? You can cherry pick what you like ... but ... :)

zzyzzx says

What's wrong zzyzzx? Did your cat say no?

socal2 says

We separated marriage from procreation and now we have a big freaking mess on our hands.

Who is we? and when did you do this? If by we you mean the automobile and equal rights for women then, I guess I understand what you are trying to say.

Should gay people add to society by raising their own children or adopting children that are unwanted? Yes! Or at least that is what my wife, daughter and I believe. By the way we are on the right side of history!

It's the stupid equality movement. All the retards always want to be equal with normal people.

Well, they are not equal. Marriage is for man and a woman, not anything else. Done!

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Too many drugs, too many excesses, and no reason to do anything productive. Entire generation spent their life doing drugs, drinking, and seeking pleasure. Bored people with nothing better to do and no imagination. Way too prosperous for our own good.

The poor in this country are certainly not "way too prosperous", and I would submit that drug and alcohol use in poor neighborhoods is largely the result of trying to dull the pain of poverty.

Now as for why rich, famous dumb-asses use drugs, that I don't get. If you're fucking Denise Richards, live in a mansion, and never have to work for a living, why do you need to roll eight-balls? Actually, I have no idea what that even means, but I know it has something to do with heavy narcotics.

That's a good point Dan, it's who I was talking about. People who were given every opportunity in this life and squandered it all away.

FortWayne says

equal with normal people.

Unlike you. You are the one who isn't normal. So, by your own "logic," your marriage license must be taken away, before you pass along your defective genes.

FortWayne says

It's the stupid equality movement. All the retards always want to be equal with normal people.

Well, they are not equal. Marriage is for man and a woman, not anything else. Done!

Oh those pesky people. Asking for their rights again. The nerve. And I bet they don't look like you or talk like you. Probably over educated. Lazy. Not God fearing.

If only they were all blue eyed, blond, and marching in step ... because though your statements were meant to be inflammatory, truly they are about the most fascist thing I've seen on the boards. Well done.

Edit: capitalizing the G in god.