Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Kondor3]

"...Right...the polls are wrong, Romney wins..."

Look at the tremendous popular blowback associated with both the Chick-Fil-A and A&E incidents (including the sudden surge of Duck merchandise right before Christmas) and tell me there's not something wrong with those polls. But... it's your funeral... suit yourself... go ahead and continue to delude yourself that the other 97% is on your side. Such thinking paves the way for substantive reversals when the Opposition gets its next turn at-bat.

"...Come on dude, you're trying to ascribe a societal harm in my existence...not that it is even possible but to what end? You're not going to get rid of the gheys and you're not going to stop them from legally marrying so what is the point you are attempting to make?..."

Yes. I am saying that many people perceive that homosexuality is detrimental and poisonous to society.

Nobody is talking about getting rid of Gays.

Enjoy your recent victories (such as Gay Marriage) while they last. I, and a great many others, are not as certain as you, that those victories are a permanent state of affairs.

"...Public opinion is clearly not in your favor, a few people eating crappy fried food and watching reality shows aside..."

This is a circular argument, bringing us back to the validity of polls versus evidence of people voting with their dollars.

"...Gays are no longer viewed by a majority of Americans the way YOU view them. You are in the minority...but I won't try to take away your right to legally marry."

Again, back to the validity of polls. I happen to think that you're in for a nasty surprise after January 20, 2017, but, of course, I could be wrong. You had better hope that I am.

 

[Avatar4321]

Needless to say marriage is never going to include same sex relationships.

Marriage already does. We've been marrying in churches for decades and now we get to legally marry in over a dozen states. Ship has sailed.

Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage doesn't make it so. Any more than calling one dollar $10 is going to make the guy at the shop $9.

You can immitate marriage all you want. You can pretend as if you are married. But you aren't. Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman by definition. You cannot change the definition and think you have the same thing just because you call it the same name. Reality doesn't change just because you want to lie to yourself about it.

Homosexual relationships aren't going to make you any more happy if you legally sanction them. You're still going to be just as miserable.

 

[Avatar4321]

It will happen, either way, so you better get used to it.

So you are going to force it on the people regardless of what the people think? And here i thought we lived in a free nation.

Nothing is being forced on anyone. You don't have to marry a member of the same sex if you don't want to.

Oh so you aren't trying to force society to legally recognize gay relationships now? if so, then how exactly is it going to happen either way if the people oppose you at the ballot box?

Or did you really think trying to change the argument was going to justify your desire to compell people to accept it?

The very fact that you feel the need to change the argument tells me you know you've lost.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you are going to force it on the people regardless of what the people think? And here i thought we lived in a free nation.

Nothing is being forced on anyone. You don't have to marry a member of the same sex if you don't want to.

You're free to think what you want. You're not free to impose your views on everyone.

Then you probably shouldn't claim that your way is going to be imposed on society regardless of what the people want.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you going to lobby the far left to make it equal and fair?

A man with children pays more in taxes than a female with children making the same amount of money.

Could you link to this difference in tax rates for equal situations based on gender?

Let's say you have a single man with two children and a female with two children. They earn the same amount, live in the same place, have the same expenses, etc... to that there is a apples to apples comparison.

So can you link to a government tax structure that would charge them different tax rates?

And what makes you think that being "married" get all these tax breaks that civil unions don't get?

Some examples of tax breaks that civil unions don't get:

1. Tax free transfer of property to a living spouse only occurs for Civil Marriage, not Civil Unions.

2. Estate tax exemptions for inheritance by a spouse apply only to Civil Marriages and not to Civil Unions.

3. The tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No spouse, no exemption - the survivor is taxed like a single person.)

4. Employees are liable for the taxes on the employer portions of health care insurance as income in Civil Unions, those in a Civil Marraige to not pay taxes as it is not considered "income" for us. (For Civilly Married couples, the employer portion of Health Insurance is tax free, however on plans where the significant other is not a legal spouse - then the federal government charges that portion as income and is liable for taxation.)​

Those are four off the top of my head.


>>>>

 

[candycorn]

Nothing is being forced on anyone. You don't have to marry a member of the same sex if you don't want to.

You're free to think what you want. You're not free to impose your views on everyone.

Then you probably shouldn't claim that your way is going to be imposed on society regardless of what the people want.

Maybe what "the people want" and what you want are two different things???

How else do you explain the 0-33+ percent increase in people living in states that recognize the rights of same sex couples since 2004?

Feel free to take to the streets and fight for your rights to discriminate. Maybe you guys can start in Selma....

 

[candycorn]

Needless to say marriage is never going to include same sex relationships.

Marriage already does. We've been marrying in churches for decades and now we get to legally marry in over a dozen states. Ship has sailed.

Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage doesn't make it so. Any more than calling one dollar $10 is going to make the guy at the shop $9.

You can immitate marriage all you want. You can pretend as if you are married. But you aren't. Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman by definition. You cannot change the definition and think you have the same thing just because you call it the same name. Reality doesn't change just because you want to lie to yourself about it.

Homosexual relationships aren't going to make you any more happy if you legally sanction them. You're still going to be just as miserable.

Seeing equal protection under the law makes me happy; almost as happy as you are when you applaud discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

So you are going to force it on the people regardless of what the people think? And here i thought we lived in a free nation.

Nothing is being forced on anyone. You don't have to marry a member of the same sex if you don't want to.

Oh so you aren't trying to force society to legally recognize gay relationships now? if so, then how exactly is it going to happen either way if the people oppose you at the ballot box?

Or did you really think trying to change the argument was going to justify your desire to compell people to accept it?

The very fact that you feel the need to change the argument tells me you know you've lost.

No more than interracial marriage was "forced" on the populace...despite truly overwhelming opposition.

 

[Seawytch]

Needless to say marriage is never going to include same sex relationships.

Marriage already does. We've been marrying in churches for decades and now we get to legally marry in over a dozen states. Ship has sailed.

Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage doesn't make it so. Any more than calling one dollar $10 is going to make the guy at the shop $9.

You can immitate marriage all you want. You can pretend as if you are married. But you aren't. Because marriage is a union between a man and a woman by definition. You cannot change the definition and think you have the same thing just because you call it the same name. Reality doesn't change just because you want to lie to yourself about it.

Homosexual relationships aren't going to make you any more happy if you legally sanction them. You're still going to be just as miserable.

You know what all the above means? Nothing. I still get to file joint taxes with my legal spouse, she still gets her military dependent ID card, etc. Your opinion on the "validity" of my marriage and $5 will get you coffee at Starbucks.

 

[Seawytch]

And the far left racist makes the far left propaganda posts to try and back their racist stance.

BTW: Being "GAY" is not a race.

You still haven't explained how pointing out the concept of separate but equal is racist but perhaps that is a side effect of your odd Tourettes.

Nobody said gay is a race, but sexual orientation is an innate trait and the discrimination faced has startling parallels.

There is nothing innate about one's sexual preference. And to claim that any discrimination has faced startling parallels is an insult to any Black American alive. Can you name any point in history where people who practice homosexuality have been made slaves? Can you even name a point in the history of the world when gays have been slaves? How about lynched on a regular basis?

You want to know what your biggest problem with your argument is? It's obvious when someone is black. You can tell by looking at him or her. You can't tell anyone is gay by looking at them. How the heck are gays going to recieve parallel treatment to any race when you can't identify them?

in·nate
iˈnāt
adjective
1. inborn; natural.

Yup, fits the definition.

Bet You Can't Tell the Difference Between These Interracial Marriage and Gay Marriage Quotes

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

Gay or interracial?

This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."


Gay or interracial?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing is being forced on anyone. You don't have to marry a member of the same sex if you don't want to.

You're free to think what you want. You're not free to impose your views on everyone.

Then you probably shouldn't claim that your way is going to be imposed on society regardless of what the people want.

False equivalency there, bucko.

"Imposing" the 14th in the matter of marriage is constitutional. Your way violates it.

 

[kaz]

Yes, sincere. I sincerely want you to push for this legislation. Honest and truly.

I'll give your view all due consideration. Ignore the flushing sound...

Is the flushing sound your proposed legislation going down the drain? What would that look like, your legislation? Are you removing all reference to marriage from government documents or going the cheap and easy way and just ending the tax breaks?

I don't get this whole line. I say what I think. I don't limit myself to only thinking things that are going to pass the legislature. I don't get why anyone would think like you do. And I don't see you holding yourself or anyone else to this standard. These posts that I'm not going to get my way are just spam.

 

[kaz]

Is the flushing sound your proposed legislation going down the drain? What would that look like, your legislation? Are you removing all reference to marriage from government documents or going the cheap and easy way and just ending the tax breaks?

Are you going to lobby the far left to make it equal and fair?

A man with children pays more in taxes than a female with children making the same amount of money.

And what makes you think that being "married" get all these tax breaks that civil unions don't get?

Kaz is the one that wants to get the gubmit out of marriage, ask him what his legislative plans are.

 

[Silhouette]

Seawytch is now beating the official drum of what s/he knows is the hinge of the pending SCOTUS argument for gays: "we are born this way!".

Except for the identical twin girls I know who were raised by a butch and femme lesbian couple. One twin is a lesbian, the other straight. Oops there goes Seawytch's entire premise out the window.

More likely sexual orientation is learned. Let's check in with the scientists on the question, since in Court, they're going to be cited or even cross examined:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Mayo Clinic 2007 http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abuse dabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review [with roughly 350 professional and peer reviewed citations supporting its conclusion that sexual orientation is learned by cues from an individual's environment...even to the point of desiring cadavers for sex if conditioned properly.]

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001 http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Sorry Seawytch, the urban dictionary and the rainbow alliance aren't credible sources to cite for the innate vs habituated argument. Might want to try the Mayo Clinic, Clinical Psychiatrists and the Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology in Quebec instead...

 

[kaz]

Seawytch is now beating the official drum of what s/he knows is the hinge of the pending SCOTUS argument for gays: "we are born this way!".

Except for the identical twin girls I know who were raised by a butch and femme lesbian couple. One twin is a lesbian, the other straight. Oops there goes Seawytch's entire premise out the window.

More likely sexual orientation is learned. Let's check in with the scientists on the question, since in Court, they're going to be cited or even cross examined:

"Born this way" doesn't necessarily mean it's as straight forward as a gene. Particularly since gay/straight is not just binary, it's a curve. There are levels of both gayness and straightness. Some people are solidly gay, some are solidly straight, some more just lean one way or the other. That one set of twins is one and the other and they have the same genes just means they both could have gone either way.

Furthermore, even for those who lean one way or the other and the gay/straight is influenced by the environment, there is absolutely no reason to believe it's just the example they see overtly regarding straight/gay, it would be a combination of environmental factors. It could be that in this case that one going one way would influence the other to be the other.

Life and cause and effect are just rarely that simple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kaz and sil's dislike of the culture means nothing to SCOTUS.

 

[Seawytch]

I'll give your view all due consideration. Ignore the flushing sound...

Is the flushing sound your proposed legislation going down the drain? What would that look like, your legislation? Are you removing all reference to marriage from government documents or going the cheap and easy way and just ending the tax breaks?

I don't get this whole line. I say what I think. I don't limit myself to only thinking things that are going to pass the legislature. I don't get why anyone would think like you do. And I don't see you holding yourself or anyone else to this standard. These posts that I'm not going to get my way are just spam.

So no legislation, just talk? You walk around as a legally married guy telling your friends about the evils of Gubmit Marriage with no actual goal of limiting it? Bummer.

 

[kaz]

Is the flushing sound your proposed legislation going down the drain? What would that look like, your legislation? Are you removing all reference to marriage from government documents or going the cheap and easy way and just ending the tax breaks?

I don't get this whole line. I say what I think. I don't limit myself to only thinking things that are going to pass the legislature. I don't get why anyone would think like you do. And I don't see you holding yourself or anyone else to this standard. These posts that I'm not going to get my way are just spam.

So no legislation, just talk?

Saying my opinion on a message board. Wow, you nailed me...

You walk around as a legally married guy telling your friends about the evils of Gubmit Marriage with no actual goal of limiting it? Bummer.

Yes, I've also told you I'm married to a conservative Republican and it's a big deal to her. She knows my view, she knows if she agreed that I would end our government marriage. Her answer is, um, no. You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage is and I should just ignore her feelings and follow my political ideology. Tough noogies to her. That isn't how straight marriages work. At least not successful ones. We just had our 25th anniversary in November, I'll stick with the straight approach to marriage. You are making a good case that you're not ready for it yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one, Kaz, has said this "You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage" thus you are lying.

Step off.

 

[kaz]

No one, Kaz, has said this "You keep reminding us you believe gay marriage to be less of a commitment to your partner than a straight marriage" thus you are lying.

Step off.

Actually Seawytch keeps saying that and I explained her saying that in my post. If you disagree, address what I said, don't just say, "no it's not."

Seawytch and I have discussed this extensively and he's repeatedly informed me that if my political ideology is that marriage should not be a government function then I should ignore my wife's feelings and divorce her (legally). My wife knows my views, She is OK with my view, she doesn't care that I tell people I'm against government marriage, she is OK that I think we should legally divorce. She isn't going to agree to it. I look at it and it's way more important to her than me, so I do it her way. I get other things my way. Seawytch just keeps saying if I'm against government marriage, then I can't be in one, she doesn't care about my wife and expects me not to either.

The best marriages are not build on across the board compromise. They are build on compromising on some issues and both people getting their way on others.

BTW, if you learned to quote, people would not need to just find your replies by accident.