Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[WorldWatcher]

So math-doers...."do the math"...

OK, here is the math...

1. A decade ago there were zero States with Same-sex Civil Marriage.

2. A decade ago State discrimination targeting homosexuals in their State Constitutions banning Civil Marriage (and many banning Civil Unions also) passed with margins of victory of (IIRC) 23-76%.

3. In 2008 & 2009 (California Prop 8 and Maine Question 1 respectively that margin had shrunk to the point where a 2.5% change in the vote would have changed the outcome.

4. In 2012 Marriage Equality appeared on the general election ballot in 4 states (Minnesota, Washington, Maryland, and Maine). In all 4 States Marriage Equality for same-sex couples one with Maine reversing it's ballot vote just 3-years later.

5. Today there are 19 States with SSCM, the majority of which were passed either by direct ballot or through legislative action (12 of 19) and not just judicially.​

That doesn't even factor in the fact that polls show a huge shift in support for Marriage Equality for same-sex couples.


There is your math.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, you forgot part of what I said. Here's all of it in context instead of what you quoted: And of course thanks to the new format here you have to "click to expand" to see all of it. That alone damages context. The site may suffer views for it though.

Actual LGBT message to MaryL: "we notice you're new here and are on the pro-traditional marriage side of the debate. In keeping with our theme of "smoke and mirrors", in order to make it appear as if there is more support for gay marriage than less, we will attempt to hurl veiled threats in your direction in order to scare you off this and other threads like it to give the appearance as if there is more support for gay marriage than there actually is."
That's called bullying BTW. Pretty sure that's forbidden by USMB rules. USMB is all about freedom of speech and encouraging that from every POV.
Oh, and also what it does is actually increase the number of people actually -voting against gay marriage while giving the appearance of "more support" for gay marriage. And this smoke and mirrors crap is making political strategists on both sides of the aisle tear their hair out in frustration at "election upsets". Voters strictly view the democratic party as "the gay marriage party". And they strictly view the GOP as "the traditional marriage party".
I can't think of a stronger motivation for voting that on issues where children's welfare is at stake. So math-doers...."do the math"...

 

[ShackledNation]

There is more support for same-sex marriage now than at any time in this nation's history. But go ahead and pretend like support is falling, that will only make marriage equality happen all that much sooner.

Geesh. Some people are so out of touch.

 

[Silhouette]

There is more support for same-sex marriage now than at any time in this nation's history. But go ahead and pretend like support is falling, that will only make marriage equality happen all that much sooner.

Geesh. Some people are so out of touch.

82% of the hundreds who responded to this poll: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 146 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum don't belive that gay marriage should be a sweeping "right".

 

[Flopper]

Life is full of uncertainties. People are really messed up, and some of those messed up folks make babies. But marriage isn't for messed up folks that can't make babies with each other with sexual malfunctions. It's for screwed up people that can make babies with each other through sex, not adoption or re-writing laws or buggery or anything else. Pan trans sexualism aside.

Whew....good thing YOU don't get to make the rules. Did you know that gays can now legally marry in 19 states plus the District of Columbia? 48.8% of Americans live in a state with marriage equality. Did you know gays can adopt in all 50 states?

Yep, it's legal in 19 states and in 12 more states pro-marriage rules are in the courts. The list of states than ban gay marriage is a list of red states. The Gallop poll in 2014 reports 55% favor gay marriage, a figure that has been increasing every year for the past 6 years. The handwriting is on the wall, but some just can't read.

 

[RKMBrown]

There is more support for same-sex marriage now than at any time in this nation's history. But go ahead and pretend like support is falling, that will only make marriage equality happen all that much sooner.

Geesh. Some people are so out of touch.

82% of the hundreds who responded to this poll: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 146 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum don't belive that gay marriage should be a sweeping "right".

YOU ARE A LYING POS

 

[Silhouette]

Very simple to find out who the lying POS is RKM, they just have to visit the link and read the poll results. Did you think they wouldn't?

Yep, it's legal in 19 states and in 12 more states pro-marriage rules are in the courts. The list of states than ban gay marriage is a list of red states. The Gallop poll in 2014 reports 55% favor gay marriage, a figure that has been increasing every year for the past 6 years. The handwriting is on the wall, but some just can't read.

The only states where gay marriage is legal is in those states where the discreet widespread community first debated and then weighed in, in democratic fashion in order to allow "gay marriage". I believe that number is "3" states so far... Read Windsor. They defined not only that states have the choice on gay marriage but also how that choice is to transpire within their boundaries as that citizenry's "unquestioned authority" on marriage laws...

This is really going to come as a rude awakening for some when Windsor is revisited. They should have had a press conference then and ripped the bandaid off instead of slowly peeling it away from the "state's choice since the founding of our country" ultimate revelation... If the poor flock of the church of LGBT have grounds for a lawsuit, it should be against the Supreme Court itself for failing to clarify its stance in Windsor.

 

[WorldWatcher]

believe that number is "3" states so far... Read Windsor.

Try reading it yourself, Windsor itself recognizes (at the time): "Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect."

That's 12 right there and the count has grown.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

Very simple to find out who the lying POS is RKM, they just have to visit the link and read the poll results. Did you think they wouldn't?

Yep, it's legal in 19 states and in 12 more states pro-marriage rules are in the courts. The list of states than ban gay marriage is a list of red states. The Gallop poll in 2014 reports 55% favor gay marriage, a figure that has been increasing every year for the past 6 years. The handwriting is on the wall, but some just can't read.

The only states where gay marriage is legal is in those states where the discreet widespread community first debated and then weighed in, in democratic fashion in order to allow "gay marriage". I believe that number is "3" states so far... Read Windsor. They defined not only that states have the choice on gay marriage but also how that choice is to transpire within their boundaries as that citizenry's "unquestioned authority" on marriage laws...

This is really going to come as a rude awakening for some when Windsor is revisited. They should have had a press conference then and ripped the bandaid off instead of slowly peeling it away from the "state's choice since the founding of our country" ultimate revelation... If the poor flock of the church of LGBT have grounds for a lawsuit, it should be against the Supreme Court itself for failing to clarify its stance in Windsor.

I know what you are doing you POS. You are trying to get a google hit for a poll number that is saying something you are making up. You are seeking support for your LIES. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A POS LIAR.

 

[Silhouette]

believe that number is "3" states so far... Read Windsor.

Try reading it yourself, Windsor itself recognizes (at the time): "Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect."

That's 12 right there and the count has grown.


>>>>

That one point will be the new clarification coming. Because near as I can tell, you cannot say " a state first deliberated and its discreet community came together and enacted legal gay marriage, in that state's unquestioned authority to do so" and then turn around and say "oh but a federal judge can overturn that decision if s/he wants."

Either it's a state's choice or it isn't. It cannot be both ways.

 

[kaz]

So math-doers...."do the math"...

OK, here is the math...

Aahhh, do the "math." I thought she said do the "meth." That was yesterday, I don't remember much after that.

[That doesn't even factor in the fact that polls show a huge shift in support for Marriage Equality for same-sex couples.


There is your math.


>>>>

Which is why your doing it through the Unconstitutional way of court decree is so pathetic. You're right, based on attitudes of the old against gay marriage who are dying and the young coming of voting age who don't see the issue with gay marriage, you would have gotten it anyway. And it would have been doing it the right way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

believe that number is "3" states so far... Read Windsor.

Try reading it yourself, Windsor itself recognizes (at the time): "Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect."

That's 12 right there and the count has grown.


>>>>

That one point will be the new clarification coming. Because near as I can tell, you cannot say " a state first deliberated and its discreet community came together and enacted legal gay marriage, in that state's unquestioned authority to do so" and then turn around and say "oh but a federal judge can overturn that decision if s/he wants."

Either it's a state's choice or it isn't. It cannot be both ways.

The State of Alabama (as an example) passed a State Constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage.

How well did that work?


You choose to ignore other parts of Windsor, such as

"the incidents, benefits, and obligations
of marriage are uniform for all married couples
within each State, though they may vary, subject to
constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next"


Whether States can discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple is what the court will still have to address, just as they had to address whether states could discriminate based on the racial composition of the couple.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So math-doers...."do the math"...

OK, here is the math...

Aahhh, do the "math." I thought she said do the "meth." That was yesterday, I don't remember much after that.

[That doesn't even factor in the fact that polls show a huge shift in support for Marriage Equality for same-sex couples.


There is your math.


>>>>

Which is why your doing it through the Unconstitutional way of court decree is so pathetic. You're right, based on attitudes of the old against gay marriage who are dying and the young coming of voting age who don't see the issue with gay marriage, you would have gotten it anyway. And it would have been doing it the right way.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that when Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was written - they were just kidding when they wrote that the Supreme Court was there to determine the law and facts of cases before the court.

BTW - I'm not a party to any case, therefore "I'm" not doing a thing.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Which is why your doing it through the Unconstitutional way of court decree is so pathetic. You're right, based on attitudes of the old against gay marriage who are dying and the young coming of voting age who don't see the issue with gay marriage, you would have gotten it anyway. And it would have been doing it the right way.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that when Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was written - they were just kidding when they wrote that the Supreme Court was there to determine the law and facts of cases before the court.

BTW - I'm not a party to any case, therefore "I'm" not doing a thing.


>>>>

I didn't say the Supreme Court can't rule, so your argument is bogus. Their ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, and that is where they failed.

What a sad argument. So if the supreme court rules the government needs to ensure every citizen receives $20,000 a year, so if they don't earn that government has to give it to them, you would argue Article III section II gave them that power? Bull, it doesn't give them any power to make up law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which is why your doing it through the Unconstitutional way of court decree is so pathetic. You're right, based on attitudes of the old against gay marriage who are dying and the young coming of voting age who don't see the issue with gay marriage, you would have gotten it anyway. And it would have been doing it the right way.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that when Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was written - they were just kidding when they wrote that the Supreme Court was there to determine the law and facts of cases before the court.

BTW - I'm not a party to any case, therefore "I'm" not doing a thing.


>>>>

I didn't say the Supreme Court can't rule, so your argument is bogus. Their ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, and that is where they failed.

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[beagle9]

Whether it's all mechanics isn't the issue. The fact is that the mechanics make it impossible for a true homosexual to have sex with a woman.

No it doesn't and you're a fool to think it does.

Since you insist on debating the issue, we'll have to get down to the nitty gritty. How does a homosexual have sex with a woman if he can't get an erection?

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman. The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Oh, you'd be surprised. Close your eyes and you don't care whose lips are on your dick...and your dick sure as he'll doesn't care.

You can have an orgasm with the aid of an inanimate object...that does not make you an objectophile.

And what kind of person would this make someone if they did what you suggest above in black ?

You see this is where it is all going wrong these days, otherwise people are having to close their eyes because they have to imagine something as being good, when in fact it is nothing but bad in life. This is what their doing now instead of keeping their eyes wide open in order to avoid doing bad things. In keeping the eyes open, then this way they shall always know good when they see good in life, and to know bad when they see bad in life. They should not have to imagine something to somehow be good when it is not good at all, but rather it is just plain wrong instead, so their eyes are closed or have to be closed upon doing such bad things in their lives.

 

[bripat9643]

Which is why your doing it through the Unconstitutional way of court decree is so pathetic. You're right, based on attitudes of the old against gay marriage who are dying and the young coming of voting age who don't see the issue with gay marriage, you would have gotten it anyway. And it would have been doing it the right way.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that when Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was written - they were just kidding when they wrote that the Supreme Court was there to determine the law and facts of cases before the court.

BTW - I'm not a party to any case, therefore "I'm" not doing a thing.


>>>>

I didn't say the Supreme Court can't rule, so your argument is bogus. Their ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, and that is where they failed.

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

 

[Seawytch]

Which is why your doing it through the Unconstitutional way of court decree is so pathetic. You're right, based on attitudes of the old against gay marriage who are dying and the young coming of voting age who don't see the issue with gay marriage, you would have gotten it anyway. And it would have been doing it the right way.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that when Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was written - they were just kidding when they wrote that the Supreme Court was there to determine the law and facts of cases before the court.

BTW - I'm not a party to any case, therefore "I'm" not doing a thing.


>>>>

I didn't say the Supreme Court can't rule, so your argument is bogus. Their ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, and that is where they failed.

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

 

[kaz]

Which is why your doing it through the Unconstitutional way of court decree is so pathetic. You're right, based on attitudes of the old against gay marriage who are dying and the young coming of voting age who don't see the issue with gay marriage, you would have gotten it anyway. And it would have been doing it the right way.

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that when Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was written - they were just kidding when they wrote that the Supreme Court was there to determine the law and facts of cases before the court.

BTW - I'm not a party to any case, therefore "I'm" not doing a thing.


>>>>

I didn't say the Supreme Court can't rule, so your argument is bogus. Their ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, and that is where they failed.

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

 

[Seawytch]

You should write a letter to the Supreme Court and tell them that when Article III Section 2 of the Constitution was written - they were just kidding when they wrote that the Supreme Court was there to determine the law and facts of cases before the court.

BTW - I'm not a party to any case, therefore "I'm" not doing a thing.


>>>>

I didn't say the Supreme Court can't rule, so your argument is bogus. Their ruling needs to be based on the Constitution, and that is where they failed.

You mean like the part of the Constitution where States can't deny citizens the privileges and immunities of the law, where all citizens (including homosexuals) are required to receive due process nor be denied equal protections under the law?

Don't worry, IF the SCOTUS takes a case (very likely, depends some on what the 6th Circuit does), and IF they rule that States can't discriminate in the area of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple - it will be based on the Constitution.


>>>>

You mean the court will claim its decision is based on the Constitution even though they totally ignored it. Supreme Court judges are political hacks who where put on the court because they could be depended upon to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal protection. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preferences don't enter into it.

You're still gonna lose.

Um...he just said that. He even clearly explained why. You weren't paying attention, were you?

I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)