Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 16, 2008

State Senate OKs gay marriage expansion

July 16, 2008

Advertisement

— Out-of-state gay couples got one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding Tuesday when the state Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that has been used to bar them from marrying here.

The law prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they can't legally wed in their home states.

The House is expected to vote on the repeal measure later this week. The Senate action came on a voice vote.

After Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriages in 2004 under a court order, then-Gov. Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to enforce the then-little-known 1913 law and deny licenses to out-of-state couples.

That move blocked Maine residents Michael Thorne, 55, and James Theberge, 50, from getting married in Massachusetts four years ago. They were among eight out-of-state gay couples who sued but lost in 2006 when the same court that allowed gay marriage refused to toss out the 1913 law.

Comments

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

Fortunately, the dozens of states that have passed laws and/or constitutoinal amendments protecting tradtional marriages will not recognize the illegitimate marriages coming out of Massachusetts.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

"backwards", "Christoholics", "inbreds", "homophobic"Why do you choose to eliminate rational debate by slinging these slurs? If you're in favor of tolerance and letting all sides of an issue be heard, you're making it pretty hard to believe.

0

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical - blah , blah, blah. You keep trying to change the subject because you have no valid arguement.Altering the marriage laws so that everyone is given the equal rights and privaledges that they are entitled to does not interfer with consumer protection laws, and anything else you want to bring into this. Why must you keep changing the subject? We are talking about basic civil contracts for consenting adults. Can you stay on topic?And I clarified my point regarding incest before seeing your idiotic replies. I will not even begin to argue with you about what it takes to rear children because being an ex-educator, I saw plenty of straight couples f*ck up their kids. It's about having loving parent(s), not how many and the sex of the parents. I partly decided to get out of education because I was sick of dealing with parents that weren't ready and willing to do what is necessary to raise a well adjusted child. And I'm sorry I gave you credit for being intelligent enough to understand why incest is wrong, if children are being produced.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Autie:"You've got a way of confusing the obvious and trivializing the momentous with the searing logic of your firey intellect." - autieGreat quote from "Gettysburg"

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

What a surprise, sfjayhawk makes a fallacious reply to my argument, probably because s/he doesn't know how to use logic.continue to talk amongst yourselves...

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Autie:Life is not about absolute but you can't believe in "X" and "not X" at the same time, it is contradictory."Or if I don't think drinking whiskey is good but beer is OK?" autieA better analogy would be thinking drinking any alcohol is wrong, and thinking drinking whiskey is wrong, but think drinking (alcoholic) beer is OK."And wonder about the blinder vision, narrow mindedness I've encountered today" autiePerhaps you should work on your own narrow mindedness before you try to work on someone else's.

0

SloMo 6 years, 3 months ago

"Should Polygamists wives/husbands get benefits through their partners work? Could I have 10 wives, 75 children and they are all covered under my insurance plan?" - Yes - of course, I think everyone ought to have access to good health care anyway."Could a pair of bachelors that never married, marry each other to avoid the inheritance tax. If say one owned family land and was about to die? Who are we to say to hetersexual borthers/cousins can't become gay at the age of 85 and marry each other?"I honestly don't have a problem with this, although I think there are other legal ways around the inheritance tax that most people would likely take. But so what if people don't always marry for the purest, noblest of reasons? Marrying for love is a relatively new concept. It used to be thought foolish to marry for anything other than money and status.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical - why do you hate gay people? Is it not hateful to deprive them of equal rights? I know you are scared of things that you dont understand or have been told are evil by someone you have delegated your thinking to.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

Where to start? Heterosexual marriage is the one and only institution which has has for millenia been the foundation for rearing healthy children. Therefore, I am concerned less about what homosexual "marriage" says about our degrading culture and more concerned about harm to children. Biology (not theology) has determined that children are most likely to thrive in a home comprised of a loving husband and wife. And while heterosexual marriage is no guarantee that every child will be born into a loving household comprised of a mom and a dad, homosexual "marriage," by definition, precludes this from even being an option. Therefore, society must and shall continue to protect traditional marriage from radical attempts to redefine its most basic - indeed its most sacred - of institutions.In fact, Americans overwhelmingly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Traditional marriage wins landslide victory after landslide victory in EVERY state that the issue is put to voters.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Autie:You are a hypocrite who is worse than the people you disdain because you criticize them for the exact same reasons you make distinctions, based on who can marry. So just remember that before you criticize someone that disagrees with you. Normally I wouldn't argue with a hypocrite because they cannot have a logical discussion. But:"Most of them without participative fathers, most of them have medical cards and most of the mothers thought the were being cool doing it:and the men were proud to "give her a baby"." autieThis leads to other social problems, which further proves my point that changing the definition of marriage has a social impact.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

kmat..."Consenting, related adults should be able to marry, as long as they agree and take measures to insur that they do not reproduce..."Why? Don't they have the freedom to choose whether they want a child that could potentially (but not necessarily) have genetic defects? Should we prevent all people with genetic defects from procreating? And how does not allowing them to marry prevent them from procreating?Live and let live. How does it affect your marriage?

0

SloMo 6 years, 3 months ago

"Heterosexual marriage is the one and only institution which has has for millenia been the foundation for rearing healthy children. "Wrong! Extended families (with or without formal "marriages") and strong communities have been the institutions that have for millenia been the foundation for rearing healthy children (and plenty of unhealthy ones as well). The nuclear family is a relatively new thing, and even when headed up by a heterosexual couple, doesn't have a very good track record.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

I am only intolerant to people that are bigots, or homophobic nut balls who stopped thinking for themselves long ago. If that is a double standard, its one I can live with. Good news for me is that these people are vastly outnumbered by rational people that believe in the great American concept of justice and equality for all. There is also the distinct possibility that after Obama is elected president that their heads will explode spattering their right wing bran-caulk all over their AM radios as they head off to join Wildmon and Dobson and Falwell and Jesse Helms in the Great Gay Bath House in the sky.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

The stuttering clan of militant homophobic Christoholics are so marginalized, so utterly irrelevant that its almost sad. They are already nothing more than a punch line - it is so amusing watching them make their last stand on this issue - an issue that has already passed them by while they are still muttering things about evil teletubbies and mind controlling rainbow flags. Its not far off that these inbreds will be nothing more than a laughable footnote of history, good riddance!

0

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

satirical - you just want to take it to the extreme. OK, if all you can do is create these hypotheticals, then yes I do support the rights of consenting adults to do what they want as long as no harm is done to anyone else. The only area where the line has to be drawn is regarding incest. And I'd hope since you have enough intelligence to read and use a computer that you can understand why incest can't be allowed. Just in case - I'll explain. Incest can create children with many physical and mental problems and is why it is illegal and has been for a long time. Gotta keep the gene pool diverse. It is absolutely ridiculous for you to even bring something like incest into a discussion about giving gays equal rights. I believe you do this because you have nothing to really bring to the table and have to create a scenario that you know would be wrong, in hopes you can convince others that if you allow gays to have equal rights that it will bring chaos. Are you sure you don't want to bring beastiality into the discussion too? Maybe you could find an example of a consenting dog that loved his owner so much he wanted marriage rights. Ha ha.If I wanted to add a new boyfriend or girlfriend into my marriage with my husband and he liked the idea and consents to it - no harm no foul. If a whole group of us wants to form our own family unit and all marry (not related and consenting), then great.This is about equal rights. Nothing else.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Jhwk2008:As I have said before, jhwk2008 would rather make fallacious remarks and attack my motivation rather than contradicting my argument. "Satirical has never answered the ultimate question: Would gay marriage itself be a good or bad thing?" jhwk2008Good and bad are subjective and relative.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Kmat:"I do support the rights of consenting adults to do what they want as long as no harm is done to anyone else" kmatSo you are for absolute freedom of contract? Great now we can get rid of those pesky 40 hour work week laws, and all the consumer protection laws. "Incest can create children with many physical and mental problems and is why it is illegal and has been for a long time." - kmatAre you seriously using the problems with procreation in an argument opposing incest but allowing gay marriage? Who says those who want incestuous marriage want to have children, what if they don't? Even if they do, isn't it their decision (as you stated above)?

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Anxiousatheist:"As states are obliged to recognize laws that other states deem legal"This is an incorrect statement. Kansas law clearly state it does not recognize same sex marriage even lawfully performed in other states. Also, Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating states do not have to recognize other states marriage. Finally, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply since marriage like criminal law is a state by state issue.

0

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

"I don't know any polygamist or sister marriers..but I do know a number of homosexuals that are some of the finest human beings I'll ever know."Ok, could you explain how not knowing polygamist or sister "marriers" somehow relates to knowing homosexuals? I don't know any homosexual "marriers", either, but I may know some of the finest Mormons."To qualify the phrase, "Live and let live" is used in the context of the article above and has no reference to your other situational observations."Ahhh. Selective "live and let live".Maybe the same opinion of Marion objecting to my questions. Maybe too many at once. How about this one:Why are they so desperate for a piece of paper when more and more normal oriented male and females are choosing NOT to get a piece of paper? And, many would not consider themselves "Christoholics".

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Social Implications of altering the definition of marriage to allow same sex unions, which has always had restrictions."It has a great effect on child rearing -- the correlation between fatherlessness and violent crime and other antisocial behaviors is admitted by every sociologist -- and even on the behavior of the spouses themselves. When men mix only with other men, or women with other women, all the negative traits of each sex are magnified. But when men marry women, both parties moderate their behavior, and we achieve at least some union between yang and yin.""The law of unintended consequences applies in full force here. For example, the easier we make it for any group of two or more people to be legally considered "married," the less special is the marital relationship; as it becomes less special, it attracts fewer people. Fewer marriages means fewer children, hence a waning, dying culture (cf. Northern Europe, esp. Scandinavia).""What's to stop gang members from all marrying each other, so that none will be able to testify against another? How do you prevent an entire building full of spinsters marrying the same guy, so each can receive Social Security? How do we prevent one American citizen from marrying five hundred Argentinian women and men to bring them all here as permanent residents?Marriage needs restrictions: Without them, it's no more special a relationship than a bowling team or union membership."http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/god_and_man_in_the_blogosphere/

0

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

Hmmm??What was wrong with what I said?If I recalled, I just asked some questions.

0

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

So according to Satirical, nothing in this world can ever change because it can have "unintended social consequences". I feel for you living in your scared little world, afraid anyone's actions may affect your life. So sad. I embrace change and it appears that you need to also. Enough said, because there is no getting through to anyone that decided from the start to be closed minded and not allow change in their lives or their world."You can clutch the past so tightly to your chest that it leaves your arms too full to embrace the present." Jan Glidewell

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

"How, exactly, does prohibiting gay marriage protect traditional marriage?"read my post at 2:03

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Kmat:You continue to accuse me of changing the subject but I am not. I am pointing out that when you make the changes you propose for the reasons you propose it can have unintended social consequences, which is exactly what many people claim will not occur if same sex marriage is legalized. If your argument for allowing same sex marriage is based on "equal rights" then by logical extension you should either (1) support the same rights for those advocating polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage (2) declare you understand that marriage is a right to which there are conditions and limitations (3) state you are a hypocrite and everyone will ignore you from now on like 'autie'.You argue that "basic civil contracts for consenting adults should not be interfered with." However, this by logical extention is the opposite of federal regulated 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage, and consumer protection laws, which limit the freedom of contract between consenting adults. So, again by logical extention you should (1) support the absolute freedom of contract and support removed the barriers between employers and employees ability to freely contract (2) realize the freedom of contract is limited (3) be a hypocrite. Separately I argue that marriage is not just marriage is a status no merely a contract as defined by the U.S. constitution (supreme court ruling affirm this)."And I'm sorry I gave you credit for being intelligent enough to understand why incest is wrong, if children are being produced." kmatI apologize if you are unable to read, but I clearly countered your argument opposing incestuous marriage, and allowing incestuous couples to reproduce or adopt. Perhaps you are just not used to losing an argument.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

"In fact, Americans overwhelmingly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Traditional marriage wins landslide victory after landslide victory in EVERY state that the issue is put to voters."Wrong- your statement should read "Homophobic redneck Americans overwhelmingly support marriage between one man and one subservient woman because someone (fred phelps most likely) told them that god hades gays, and women should say in their place. Traditional marriage wins landslide victory after landslide victory in most irrelevant rural states that the issue has been put to the voters."

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

For some reason duplenty has failed to get the hint that I will not respond to individuals who are unable to make an argument since it is a waste of my time.

0

acg 6 years, 3 months ago

Well said autie. As for polygamy, I would support it. If all of the participants are adults and aware of the situation they're entering into, why not? Why do I care how many wives some dude has? As long as they aren't child brides that are forced into it, then who really cares? I think a lot of ya'll spend way too much time worrying about what's going on in other people's bedrooms. Is that maybe because you have absolutely nothing going on in your own?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 3 months ago

tangential says: " ""...You start a conversation you can't even finish it. You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything. When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say nothing once, why say it again?"-- PsyK

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

Please don't make this the first generation in the history of the human race to legitimize homosexual "marriage." Marriage between one man and one woman - the foundation of the family and, thus, the foundation of society - already has a tough enough time enduring the radicalization of our culture.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Sfjayhawk:"your statement should read "Homophobic redneck Americans overwhelmingly support marriage between one man and one subservient woman:" - sfjayhawkWhat a novel tactic, rather than countering my arguments (which everyone has failed to do), you start stereotyping and calling names like a child. I guess anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot or hateful. (Wait a minute: that is the definition of bigot).

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

I never said I was tolerant of sad Christian nutballs who discriminate against all things that they are afraid of and dont understand. I am really enjoying watching them fade into ignominy, and squirm with fear as they are left behind and exposed for what they really are - a scared virulent, spittle-flecked gaggle of mental midgets - who's last original thought was, well was never.

0

vpete69 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

kmat...So you are also for supporting polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage (all between consenting adults)?

0

tuna 6 years, 3 months ago

So STRS - even if you're are of a Christian/Jewish/Muslim faith, your issue with gay marriage is all founded in some secular fear of it further tearing the moral fabric of our society? Please, do tell...

0

tvc 6 years, 3 months ago

notnow, that is traditional marriage...when a man gets rich he trades in his old wife for a new one.

0

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

I actually have to clarify my point on incest. Consenting, related adults should be able to marry, as long as they agree and take measures to insur that they do not reproduce, which could cause harm to the child. As long as they don't want to create children, then go get married if that's what you want. And I would be all for them adopting, just as I am for any gay couple. I didn't want my previous post to reflect in any way that I thought marriage was about having kids (I've been very happily married for 10 years and have no children).

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

you sound like one of those bitter people who cling to guns and jeasus. sad

0

calnvy 6 years, 3 months ago

I was telling a friend that I saw the "christian" fish symbol on the bumper of a brand new $200k Bentley and it brought to mind a question... Which is a bigger "abomination"... Loving another human who happens to have the same equipment, or driving nearly a 1/4 million dollars while there are hungry and homeless people out there? So really... WWJD?p.s. luv ya sfjayhawk!

0

davidnta 6 years, 3 months ago

Depends on where you are at that you can claim "overwhelming" majority of those who want to limit marriage or those who advocate marriage equality.Obviously you haven't interacted with many same-sex parents to know that children in those types of environment are probably one of the most nurtured and loved out versus those children who are born outside of a committed relationship and are forced to grow up with one parent. It's not the children being in that environment that is harmful, it is those outside that are causing the harm (i.e., homophobic people and their children make fun, tease, and threaten children of same-sex parents). But in any case, you can make the argument that marriage should be limited, but you know what? You're losing the battle. What will happen 5 years from now? 10 years from now? You'll probably be here complaining how same-sex relationships have ruined your life while everyone else is living theirs.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Sfjayhawk:Do you posses so much hubris to believe everyone who disagrees with you is motivated by hate? Do you always questions the motivation of those you disagree with because you can't make a rational counter argument to the valid reasons that there are social implications to changing the definition of marriage? Do you think marriage is a right without limitations so much that it no longer has any significance? Do you think polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage should be allowed?

0

enima18 6 years, 3 months ago

autie's comment cracks me up. I like how he/she picks at heterosexual marriage like it is a hobby. Just give it time and I bet same sex marriage will rack up the same divorce or seperation numbers that heterosexual marriages do. The problem is same sex marriages aren't legal everywhere so there are no true statistics.

0

bad_dog 6 years, 3 months ago

autie-this one's for you:"Woke up this morningPut on my slippersWalked in the kitchen and diedAnd oh what a feeling!When my soulWent thru the ceilingAnd on up into heaven I did rideWhen I got there they did sayJohn, it happened this wayYou slipped upon the floorAnd hit your headAnd all the angels sayJust before you passed awayThese were the very last wordsThat you said:Chorus:Please don't bury meDown in that cold cold groundNo, I'd druther have "em" cut me upAnd pass me all aroundThrow my brain in a hurricaneAnd the blind can have my eyesAnd the deaf can take both of my earsIf they don't mind the sizeGive my stomach to MilwaukeeIf they run out of beerPut my socks in a cedar boxJust get "em" out of hereVenus de Milo can have my armsLook out! I've got your noseSell my heart to the junkmanAnd give my love to RoseRepeat ChorusGive my feet to the footlooseCareless, fancy freeGive my knees to the needyDon't pull that stuff on meHand me down my walking caneIt's a sin to tell a lieSend my mouth way down southAnd kiss my a$$ goodbye"John Prine

0

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

So now wanting the right to get married qualifies as "taking your choices of bedroom behavior into the public"?Might be a good question to ask why acg brought that up."Yes and no, as there is no argument against gay marriage that isn't religious in it's origin."It's anti-evolution.But, you're right - that's religious.Can anyone give an example of homosexuals being supported by evolution - that is survival of those fit, being those who produce offspring? Mind you, the fitness referenced is not that of an individual but that of population genetics."Incest can create children with many physical and mental problems and is why it is illegal and has been for a long time."So kmat, would you say people who have bad genes should not be allowed to marry? Maybe you subscribe to permitting only those with blond hair and blue eyes to marry.

0

chapdaddy 6 years, 3 months ago

this discussion is, well, .....er, gay.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Autie:"If X is gay marriage that doesnt' mean not X equals polygamy or incest." - autie'X' is changing the definition of marriage because of "civil rights" or "live and let live" or "freedom of contract" reasons, which applies equally to polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage. In fact I could make better argument advocating polygamy and not gay marriage than the other way around.

0

denak 6 years, 3 months ago

I really don't want to get into the whole marriage arguement because there are those who will always believe that it is moral and correct to discriminate against another group of individuals.All I have to say is good for Massachussetts. Way to go.Dena

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

If only I had known , jhwk2008. Are you suggesting McCain isn't really a social conservative!?! What a shocker. (Sarcasm intended)

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical -No I believe that anyone that wants to deprive others of equal rights is motivated by either hate or in your case - fear. I also dont think you will find a single person who advocates for both equal rights for same sex couples and for polygamy, incest etc. - its apples to oranges. I do have enough hubris to say that I think that you and the rest of the fred phelps crowd are repugnant people, and are likely to be self hating closeted homosexuals. If you would only come out, and be true to yourself you might find happiness and be able to stop hating what scares you so much.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

sfjayhawk,You're the only one bringing religion into this discussion. Unless I missed it, there isn't a single post which references God or the Bible. Making this argument a religious issue is your decision alone.Additionally, your blatant, admitted religious intolerance is as bad or worse than the supposed discrimination you decry. Don't you see your double standard? You can't have it both ways, dude.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Logicsound04:"However, the second the government decides to sanction an adult consenting relationship is the second it should be prohbited for determining who is eligible and who isn't." LS04You are right the marriage is a civil institution, but marriage must have a definition or it loses all meaning. Even if you allow same sex couples to marry, it will still discriminate. Even if you allow polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage, there will still be requirements and restriction on marriage. All laws discriminate, this shouldn't prevent the government from making laws, the question is why do the discriminate and where do we draw the line. Why has our society for so long only allowed marriage between one man and one woman? Maybe there are valid social reasons that are not based on religion or hatred. I have stated some of them above.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Kmat:":because there is no getting through to anyone that decided from the start to be closed minded and not allow change in their lives or their world." - kmatNice tactic, if someone doesn't accept the changes you propose just claim they don't support any change ever. Would you accept the change of allowing children to marry without their consent? If not then you are against all change and you are close minded.I don't accept changes I believe, studies indicate and logic shows would have severe negative social implications. To do otherwise is to live in ignorance of one's role in society.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

round and round you go - must be scary to live in a world that has left you in the dust.

0

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

STRS - religion is at the core of this. I have not heard a single reason ever given during any debates over gay marriage that doesn't come down to the fact that those of you that think it is wrong is because of your religious beliefs. Those of us with more open religious beliefs tend to applaud any loving individuals coming together. It's the far right Christians that have led the fight against giving gays their equal rights, which are supposed to be guaranteed by our constitution.The solution is for civil marriages for all!! You can have your church service with god as your witness, but that should in no way be associated with the civil, legal contract binding two individuals together. You don't want gays marrying in your church - then don't allow it. Just don't deny others to live their lives as they see fit. If they do no harm to you, then you have no concerns. In this screwed up world we're living in, it kills me that people want to fight over something as petty as this. We have troops fighting overseas and our economy has gone to hell in a hand basket, but we're going to fight over giving legal citizens their equal rights. This country is really going down the crapper.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

How does prohibiting polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage effect traditional marriage or same sex marriage?

0

jhwk2008 6 years, 3 months ago

Oh, and I don't know if anyone saw this, but McCain now supports gay adoptions, which he was against the night before. McCain Backtracks From His Radical Opposition To Gay Adoption"In a statement sent to Andrew Sullivan, the McCain campaign is backing away from the radical stance on gay adoption that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) endorsed in a weekend interview with the New York Times.Here's how spokeswoman Jill Hazelbacker explains McCain's position: 'McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.'In his initial interview with the New York Times, McCain stated straight-forwardly that, "we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don't believe in gay adoption." Asked where he stood "if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents," McCain said his "concern" was that the child be with "a traditional couple." Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents. Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents. Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple Mr. McCain: Yes."

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Sjjayhawk:It is clear you are more interested in demonizing those who have a different opinion than actually engaging in a discussion, and can only be conviced by emotion (ironically the same thing you criticize your opponents of), but I will make one more attempt to use logic."I also dont think you will find a single person who advocates for both equal rights for same sex couples and for polygamy, incest etc. - its apples to oranges" sfjayhawkActually there are many you advocate for all of these, and some have stated so on this very blog if you could read. If you are too bigoted to not allow polygamist, etc the same rights as hetero couples than you are a hypocrite. The exact same arguments can be used advocating for same sex marriage as those advocating for polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage. And similar social arguments against those groups can be used against legalizing same sex marriage. You apparently agree the definition of marriage is not absolute but want to exclude others, you are a hypocrite.

0

madameX 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says: Anxiousatheist:"As states are obliged to recognize laws that other states deem legal"This is an incorrect statement. Kansas law clearly state it does not recognize same sex marriage even lawfully performed in other states. Also, Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating states do not have to recognize other states marriage. Finally, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution does not apply since marriage like criminal law is a state by state issue._________This is from way at the top but I want to address it anyway. The full faith and credit clause does apply to marriage and all other laws that go state by state, that's the whole point of having it. It tells the states how to deal with each other and the fact that there are bound to be differences between their laws. If one state recognizes a marriage then each other state is obliged to recognize it. They don't have to agree 100% on the requirements to marry, but if state A says "these two people are married" then those two people move to state B then state B has to recognize the marriage. Federal law trumps state law. It applies to other things too, but as this is a discussion of marriage I won't go in to them. A neutral example would be common law marriage. Kansas recognizes it, Missouri doesn't. So if you file your taxes as married in Kansas you are legally married. If you then move to Missouri they have to recognize the marriage because even though it doesn't meet the requirements for a legal marriage in their state because the state where you lived when you became married did recognize it. If that weren't the case the everyone would have to get re-married every time they moved to another state. So, if it was tested the defense of marriage act would probably be found unconstitutional. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the way it is.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

"Money is the answer to nine out of ten questions (encluding gay marraige), homosexuals want benefits."Same sex couples deserve the same benefits as anyone else - anything less is nothing more than discrimination.

0

jhwk2008 6 years, 3 months ago

As I have said before, there are three reasons people make the slippery slope argument regarding polygamy.1) It appeals to those people uncomfortable with attacking gays.2) It makes some gay-marriage advocates uncomfortable because it either (a) makes them accept the polygamy, or (b) argue that polygamists are not entitled to marry.3) It is an argument only brought up when when all other arguments have failed.Satirical has never answered the ultimate question: Would gay marriage itself be a good or bad thing?There's no point in "arguing" with him; he only changes the subject.

0

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

"I think a lot of ya'll spend way too much time worrying about what's going on in other people's bedrooms."Or how about this one:Why must they take their choices of behavior done in the privacy of a bedroom out into the public?

0

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

Great, this just turned into a discussion of pro v. con same sex marriage which I was not planning on getting into again.autie..."Live and let live"First, there is no universal freedom of contract. Second, marriage is no the same type of contract of which the Constitution prohibits impairment (I am surprised I don't see the counter to this argument used more often by same sex marriage advocates), because marriage is a status. Third, if you believe in "Live and let live" then I am sure you also advocate for polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage (all with consenting adults).

0

Satirical 6 years, 3 months ago

The only reason Mass is changing this law is because California is allowing out of state residents to marry there, and it doesn't want CA to get all the financial benefits from same sex marriages.

0

beatrice 6 years, 3 months ago

Satirical, you quoted from some bizarre website "big lizards.net" in your 2:03 post as your source for being against gay marriages? That is whacked. "... the correlation between fatherlessness and violent crime ..." Who is talking about fatherlessness? In some cases there may be more than one father! Bonus dad! No need to worry about violent crimes. "When men mix only with other men, or women with other women, all the negative traits of each sex are magnified." Just because someone is in a gay marriage, that doesn't mean they only mix with people of their own sex. Don't you interact with others outside of your own marriage (assuming you are married)? I've been married for 20 years, and I frequently interact with all kinds of people. "But when men marry women, both parties moderate their behavior, and we achieve at least some union between yang and yin." All men are exactly alike, as are all women. Two men couldn't possibly bring different traits and characteristics to a relationship, now could they? Oh, wait. They can. That yang/yin thing might just be the silliest of the arguments brought to the table. "The law of unintended consequences applies in full force here. For example, the easier we make it for any group of two or more people to be legally considered "married," the less special is the marital relationship..." After years of people having multiple marriages and divorces, from Liz Taylor to Britney Spears to Newt Gingrich and John McCain, suddenly now marriage is "special" and needs to be made difficult. Plus, there is no such thing as a "law of unintended consequences." That is just some made up stuff to sound impressive, but it has no meaning. As far as not having children and that being bad for society, well guess what, people in strictly gay relationships aren't having babies anyways. How would a marriage make that any different? Again, it makes no sense. Finally, the difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that, like hetero marriages, a gay marriage is a committment between two people. Humans do gravitate naturally to one other partner. It is about love, jealousy, and all the other things that go into a committed one-on-one relationship. Multiple partners don't have that. If you want multiple partners, keep dating. Marriage is for two.

0

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

madameX (Anonymous) says:"The full faith and credit clause does apply to marriage and all other laws that go state by state, that's the whole point of having it. It tells the states how to deal with each other and the fact that there are bound to be differences between their laws. If one state recognizes a marriage then each other state is obliged to recognize it. They don't have to agree 100% on the requirements to marry, but if state A says "these two people are married" then those two people move to state B then state B has to recognize the marriage."Does a state where the driving age is 16 have to grant a drivers license to a 14 year old who was legally licensed in his own state?There are various things a state is allowed to set their own standards for, and that they do not have to recognize someone else's standards for. Professional licenses, for example - if one state allows a person to be licensed as a psychologist with a master's degree, when he moves to another state that requires a doctorate, the new state does not have to allow him to practice. Even a doctoral-level licensed professional does not automatically have the right to practice in another state - he still has to meet the new state's own requirements.Remember when different states had different drinking ages? Just because you were of legal age in one state, that didn't mean you could go across the line and drink there. And even today, in some states parents can give alcoholic beverages to their underage children - in others it'll get them arrested, regardless of where they're from.There are and always have been standards, rights, benefits, statuses, and licensing requirements of various states that are not recognized by others.

0

TopJayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Whatever. I think it is not only money, but also a craving for the world to validate their existance as they are incapable of doing that on their own. and how about this. do we extend the same rights to pedaphiles. After all, they are born that way too, and like the homosexual, they just can't change. So lets give in, and ligitimize their behavior too, lest we be seen as (gasp) bigoted.

0

TopJayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

No one will answer this post because you can't

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.