I want it to be the land of the free, not "land of the free". That's the liberal's dream.

So you want to deny someone the right to do something just because you disagree with it? That doesn't sound very free to me, buddy.

Hey, I don't like country music. How about we outlaw that?

Fact error in the story: ...Minnesota approved same-sex marriage during the November election.

No, Minnesota voters rejected a stronger ban than currently exists. They still need to get rid of the current legal ban.

can we outlaw country music? where' s the petition?

"can we outlaw country music? where' s the petition?"

Which country's music?

What unnerves me is that "Beyonce was lip-syncing" is front page news instead of this.

Seems they have now corrected the fact error about Minnesota's marriage equality vote. Splendid.

There was another mass shooting (at a college in Texas this time), but yeah, the front page is all about Beyonce. Pathetic.

What's Beyonce? Is that like a fabric softener?

Being bound in darkness and in the chains of depravity; a slave to sin and unrighteousness, a captive to the thoughts of vanity is not being, or living in the land of the free. Matter of fact it is perishing in the land of the dead.

Thinkforyourself-2427469

Don't like what NBC has on their website, don't read it. Simple right?

As for Rhode Island. Kudos, another state that is coming into the 21st century. Bring on SCOTUS in March and then their ruling in June. It's time the rest of this country realizes that gays/lesbians deserve equal marriage rights. We the people applies to everyone.

Talk about self - centered. Why are our politicians wasting time deciding this crap, instead of finding ways for their state to produce jobs, get people off welfare, unemployment, food stamps, off the streets and into homes. This is just another reason the United States is going down the tubes - nobody seems to have a handle on priorities.

I'm all for equal rights but why do we have to redefine God's definition of marriage? Ya know one man, one woman. Why can't it be called something else-domestic partnership, civil union, whatever. Why can't we compromise? Is that unheard of?

Why are anybody's rights being voted on by another person. Where do you think we would be today if the rights of other minority groups were voted on?

Why do other people have the right to vote on an individual's civil rights? Just imagine where we would be today if other minority groups civil rights were voted on?

Bill it is called multitasking. Of course personally I think that the only multitasking politicians make is to fill their coffers.

Cwater 1 we are not a theocracy. 2 have you even read the bible what we consider marriage is a long way from what was in the bible. I suggest a reread

God does not make our laws, CWater. Legal marriage in this secular nation is and has always been strictly a civil contract. Furthermore, civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years.

And you don't own the word "marriage" (neither does God, since s/he's fictional).

There is no "compromise" when it comes to civil rights.

Gay and Lesbians deserve every right that hetero's have in their relationship. They just don't have the right to re- define the word marriage. We respect the gay and lesbian community for having the guts to come out and fight for your rights on one hand, but you also have to have the courage to come up with the proper term for your unique relationship. The word marriage was taken about 2500 years ago. It means man+ woman = kids, possibly.

Good for you, RI!

And where do I go to vote against country music? ;)

If marriage has been defined for 2500 years, you need to tell Chevy to STOP the marriage between body and chassis, stop bartenders from marrying bottles of booze together..

I demand equal rights for gays... YOU COMPROMISE if you want it.. call heterosexual marriage a "holy union" or a "religious union" or some other term besides marriage, and stop trying to deny equality based on your first amendment rights as if mine don't matter.. who cares what YOUR BIBLE Says. MINE SAYS GAY MARRIGE will bless this country with prosperity, and denial is the reason for our current demise..

I simply want the same rights ENDOWED BY MY CREATOR, as you have..

Erin-the compromise is the name, not the rights. Whether you believe there is a God or not is your choice, just as it is my choice to believe that there is. I respect your opinion, why can't you respect mine? And no, God does not make the laws in this world. Never said He did. In the end though, God's laws are the ones that will matter, not man's. You can take that or leave it, your choice.

And Neko, I suggest YOU reread the Bible. I do read it daily. Marriage is defined one man, one woman, nothing else. What the secular world defines marriage is not my concern, and no, it is not the biblical definition anymore. It used to be.

Again Jim, I said compromise on the name, not the rights. What Bible do you read anyway? Certainly not one from God. Besides, I didn't say your rights don't matter. I said I'm all for equal rights. You are a person just as I am. No better, nor worse.

Actually I let GOD speak to my heart, telling me the correct meaning of MAN's incorrectly translated bible full of contractictions... God corrects these errors, and how I KNOW homosexuality IS NOT A SIN!!, but that doesn't matter

again.. YOU COMPROMISE on the name or YOUR marriage.. why should I accept any less than what you have?? true a rose by any other name, still has thorns,

a marriage, ring, wedding, are all meaningless symbols without the COMMITMENT of two souls. anyway.. again, noone has shown any reason other than selfish bigortry for not letting gays use the word marriage.. much less be married..

the compromise is the name, not the rights.

So why should homosexuals have to "compromise," when they are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, just like everyone else? If you don't like the idea of same-sex marriage, call yours something different. Furthermore, why should ALL of the marriage laws have to be rewritten to extend those same rights to same-sex couples just to appease YOUR sense of "decency" (which is indecent in the extreme)? FYI, the Supreme Court has ruled that "separate" is not "equal".

I respect your opinion, why can't you respect mine?

You have to earn respect -- and you certainly haven't shown any to homosexuals, so why do you think you deserve any? Furthermore, using your so-called "belief in God" to justify your bigotry is hardly worthy of respect.

Cwater correct me if i am wrong but did not Solomon have like a million women or something. As a atheist who only believes in the natural universe, I am in no way a biblical scholar.

Bill-328037 - Talk about self - centered. Why are our politicians wasting time deciding this crap, instead of finding ways for their state to produce jobs, get people off welfare, unemployment, food stamps, off the streets and into homes. This is just another reason the United States is going down the tubes - nobody seems to have a handle on priorities.

Spoken like someone who already enjoys full civil rights and doesn't give a crap if other citizens are denied those same rights.

I think you don't have a clue what the phrase "self-centered" means.

Cwater,

You already have a special name, it's Holy Matrimony. Marriage has nothing to do with anything but law. That's why atheists can marry. And since it has nothing to do with anything except law, it needs to be applied equally.

What the secular world defines marriage is not my concern, and no, it is not the biblical definition anymore.

Nobody cares about the religious definition of "marriage" (holy matrimony). It holds no water outside your little church.

The word marriage was taken about 2500 years ago. It means man+ woman = kids, possibly.

Uh, no. It means "to enter into wedlock", "a union". Its etymology concludes that at any given point the gender meaning could be changed between masculine and feminine.

What's Beyonce? Is that like a fabric softener?

I rub Beyonce all over my sheets as often as possible. Not sure if it makes them any softer, but I'm willing to keep trying!

Solomon did indeed have many wives - specifically against what God had said. Had God forced him to have one wife, then it would be said how cruel was God for not giving free choice. God does, in fact, permit free choice in all. Since everyone here is so concerned with the flaws in humanity, be it now known that it is not any man that you are to follow anyway. God covers what He'd have you do - if you are truly interested in what He has to say; rather than just for finding the "Aha" moments with which to point.

And Sarah, God Himself covered the covenant of marriage. Argue with Him; surely someone as self-proclaimed pretty and intelligent as you have stated that you are can sway almighty God. After all, did He really know what He was doing when He spoke the world into existence? Did He really mean it when He declared that for this cause a man should leave his mother and father and cleave to one woman? It's such a good thing that.......... lo and behold.... these many centuries later you've come along to straighten Him out. You and Bradd Pitt, and all the folks that are cool - you can tell the Creator of the world; the one in whose hand holds your very breath - that you and society now have declared that He is wrong. Good luck with that, ok? You'll have lots of support here - and lots of company later with which to discuss your arrogance.

Arslp,

And Sarah, God Himself covered the covenant of marriage. Argue with Him;

Why? I'm too busy arguing with my God. I don't give a @!$%# about yours. And neither do our laws.

surely someone as self-proclaimed pretty and intelligent as you have stated that you are can sway almighty God.

Ain't I though? (Hair flip, smile in the mirror which I have set up next to my computer)

After all, did He really know what He was doing when He spoke the world into existence? Did He really mean it when He declared that for this cause a man should leave his mother and father and cleave to one woman?

Again, I could give a @!$%#. We're not talking about Gay Holy Matrimony, we're talking about gay marriage.

And personally, I'm more concerned with what he/she may have been thinking when he/she called the Platypus into existence. That thing is weird.

You and Bradd Pitt, and all the folks that are cool - you can tell the Creator of the world; the one in whose hand holds your very breath - that you and society now have declared that He is wrong.

Yeah, me and Brad talk about it over coffee via Skype everyday. Right after we get done telling each other how cool and good looking we are.

Good luck with that, ok?

I don't need luck. I have logic and law on my side.

You'll have lots of support here - and lots of company later with which to discuss your arrogance.

I love how you spend an entire post talking as though YOU speak for God and YOUR'S is the only religion in the world and supremely right in ALL things and then accuse others of arrogance.

News flash, your religion means jack @!$%# to everyone except you, and you can no more prove it than other religions can prove theirs. That's why it's IRRELEVANT.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the issue in a manner that has some substance and is applicable I'd be happy to debate the legality of this matter. But somehow, I don't think you're capable of that.

P.S. Your jealousy is showing. The pretty girls picked on you in high school didn't they? Perhaps it's time you got over that.

Sarah,

i will have to state, yes you are pretty :) (now do another hairflip ;) lol)

and from what i have seen of your posts - quite intelligent (that, again, deserves another hairflip, go ahead - i can wait ;) lol)

but i also have to state i'm a bit jealous, i wish i could Skype Brad and chat over coffee (even tho i don't drink coffee lol)

can ya hook me up ? lol i wanna Skype with Brad too !!!!!!

p.s. i do think arslp might be a teensy bit jealous, but really, can you blame arslp ? it definitely sounds like issues from when arslp was younger that arslp never quite got over

p.p.s. its ok arslp, maybe one day you can be one of the "cool" kids too ! :)

Religion is no longer a valid argument for this debate, as noted many people who are atheists are still considered married.

Phoenyx,

Thanks! When I Skype him tonight I'll ask, but Angelina gets really jealous so it may be a no-go.

alsrp All i did was cherry pick a story to prove my point. BTW i learned that tactic from the fundamentalist.

So Humanitarianism is a Liberal ideology? Alright, just so everyone is clear on that.

So Humanitarianism is a Liberal ideology? Alright, just so everyone is clear on that

You took the words right out of my mouth.

We are truly in a sad age if the expectation of equal rights for all is nothing more than a "liberal agenda."

I know right? It's amazing what some people think is an insult. Very telling about their own priorities and values.

Actually, this NBC website is not pushing anything, it is simply reporting the news from Rhode Island. But yes, the liberals in that state's Legislature are pushing their agenda, (which is arguably part of their job) which includes trying to achieve equality of rights under the law for a group of Americans currently denied such equality. Conservatives are actively pushing their agenda, which includes retaining the current denial of equal rights. And for those who slept late, the Presidential candidate promoting that part of the liberal agenda got more than 50 percent of the votes in the Nov. election.

all of these media sources are biased. there is no such thing as objective reeporting. its only "objective" or an "agenda" if it agrees or disagrees with your point of view...

maybe the supreme court will put an end to this nonsense once and for all this summer, vote on equal protection.

"all of these media sources are biased. there is no such thing as objective reeporting. its only "objective" or an "agenda" if it agrees or disagrees with your point of view..."

And that's your objective view, right?

;-)

I chose to be a factory worker. When do I get equality with the income the owner has ? It's not fair I work so hard and get only 1/350th of his pay. Just because i'm out on the floor doesn't mean I am worth less than he is right? So many are pushing to convince me that a gay couple and a straight couple are the same it stands to reason that we are ALL EQUAL and should share equally in everything correct ?

To the point there is a difference between a gay coupld and a straight couple. It is not something you have to look for it is right there in front of our eyes. There is a difference and for that reason different laws and references should be applied. Gay couples should not be lumped into the same catagory as straight couples.

Avenger, that is just about the stupidest and most ridiculously desperate analogy I've ever seen with regard to same-sex marriage, and I've seen some doozies.

Avenger-2464988

I chose to be a factory worker. When do I get equality with the income the owner has ? It's not fair I work so hard and get only 1/350th of his pay. Just because i'm out on the floor doesn't mean I am worth less than he is right? So many are pushing to convince me that a gay couple and a straight couple are the same it stands to reason that we are ALL EQUAL and should share equally in everything correct ?

If you don't like the unfair inequity with you doing all the work and your owner getting all the money, you can choose to do something about it. Form a union and go on strike. That was the American Way for generations and brought about an industrious working middle class that caused a thriving economy based upon capitalism, the free-market and competition resulting in a multitude of superior products and services. Of course, that once glorious American system no longer exists courtesy of conservatives.

So Avenger, you are for segregation then? Not even separate but equal, you want separate laws for each minority group!

By the way, the reason you get 1/350 pay of the owner is because your position as a factory worker is what they call an unskilled position. This means that anyone off the street can replace you. You want to increase your pay, get a skill!

jimboza

Liberal agenda? You mean giving gays/lesbians equal rights (the very same rights you enjoy) is an agenda? Let me know when we get to vote on your rights. Then we'll have a real agenda.

Avenger, your boss did not just walk into that job - it probably took him/her years of experience, knowledge, training and qualifications to get to that point. I'm so tired of hearing so many whiners about rich people - where the heck do you think you got your job from in the first place? If the POTUS keeps on attacking rich people, they'll probably do the same that the large corporations are doing - move to another country. And take their money with them. What'll the "poor people" have then? The US will turn into a mud pit, with everyone wanting the government to support them. Sad.

Avenger:

I chose to be a factory worker. When do I get equality with the income the owner has ? It's not fair I work so hard and get only 1/350th of his pay. Just because i'm out on the floor doesn't mean I am worth less than he is right?

No, that is not right. You are an unskilled worker without a degree or any education. He has a degree and has more responsibility at the company. He has years of acquired skill and knowledge under his belt. They are not equal amounts of work, so therefore are not equal amounts of pay. Plus, you "choose" to be a factory worker. A gay person doesn't choose to be that way.

So many are pushing to convince me that a gay couple and a straight couple are the same it stands to reason that we are ALL EQUAL and should share equally in everything correct ?

When it comes to civil rights, you are correct. We are all equal, according to the 14th amendment. Separate, but equal is not equal according to the Surpreme Court.

To the point there is a difference between a gay coupld and a straight couple. It is not something you have to look for it is right there in front of our eyes. There is a difference and for that reason different laws and references should be applied. Gay couples should not be lumped into the same catagory as straight couples.

Separate but equal is against the law. It's the same thing that this country went through with the civil rights movement and approving interracial marriage. People thought it was unnatural and shouldn't be allowed. Yet interracial marriage is recognized the same as people from the same race marrying. The same should be for gay marriage. They should get the same rights and priviledges that the rest of us enjoy because we are straight.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to attend a gay marriage. You don't have to perform one. Your church doesn't have to like it or perform one either. Just like some people still don't like interracial marriages. But they should have equal protections under the law.

Actually, this NBC website is not pushing anything, it is simply reporting the news from Rhode Island. But yes, the liberals in that state's Legislature are pushing their agenda, (which is arguably part of their job) which includes trying to achieve equality of rights under the law for a group of Americans currently denied such equality. Conservatives are actively pushing their agenda, which includes retaining the current denial of equal rights. And for those who slept late, the Presidential candidate promoting that part of the liberal agenda got more than 50 percent of the votes in the Nov. election.

Justme-123, the main issue with your post is that you are using logic here to get your point across. Unfortunately, logic is totally alien to the conservative mindset and they will never understand it.

How is reporting a story about basic human rights pushing a "liberal" agenda? Besides, if you don't like the way NBC reports the news, then find another news source. I hear Fox is desperate for viewers as their numbers are declining daily. However, they are more of an entertainment organization and not a news organization.

Try this on for size. the gay couple has only one leg to stand on when it comes to attempting to rationalize they they should be equal to GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN A TAXstraight couples. The separation of church and state. without the religious stand there is no reason for gays to be considered equal to straight. Why you aSK ? Because they will become a financial liability rather than an income generator. Here's why. The reason married couples have the benefits they do ( survivor SSI benefits, tax breaks and others) is Because odds are they will be producing more tax payers. The average is 2 children per family. So about 18 to 20 years after marriage because of the ability to produce offspring the IRS was two additional people to collect taxes from thus raising income to the government. When the parents retire the children are still paying SS taxes and income taxes which offset the payments the government pays to the parents. So for a number of years there are on average 4 taxpayers because of the straight couple and thier kids. Since the gay coupld can not reproduce they are income neutral to the government and actuall become income negative when the retire and if given the same rights to SSI survivor benefits it is even more of a burden. Sure they can adopt but that is moot because they did'nt produce the child.... there are basic differences between straight married couples and gay..believe it or not.

MagnoliaSimms.............Just to clear something up.... I am not an unskiled laborer.. I do hold a degree in engineering and have many many certififates for completed studies.. The fact is corporatins exploit workers as unskilled yet few if any would be able to accomplish any work there labor force accomplishes. I actuall don't have a clue what my boss makes. The point I was attempting to drive home is we ALL endure things just because not everyone is equal . Not everything is meant to be equal and when people make choices they also must live with the consiquinces of those choices. the world should not have to adjust simply because we make bad decisions.

wow Avenger..

you almost had a point until you really think about it and realize -- just because someone is homosexual does not make them sterile.

they still have the ability to reproduce, just like heterosexuals do. and we've heard many many stories of heterosexuals have children out of wedlock.. sometimes out of a drunken one-night stand ! sometimes outside of their relationship ! *gasp* .. i know, its shocking.. but i'll be honest.. it happens quite a lot..

guess what ?? homosexuals can do the same thing :) they don't even have to be attracted to the person (because those wonderful one-night stands that heterosexuals have aren't always because they are attracted to each other.. sometimes its because they are drunk and horny and don't care who it is). so.. two homosexuals can get married and have kids.. even if its outside of the marriage, it still works - they produced future tax payers ! even heterosexuals have kids outside of their marriage ! it happens !

so again.. your argument is null and void :)

care to try again ?

plus... if you think about it.. with your theory.. all the marriages of heterosexual couples, where one party or the other is sterile - shouldn't have all those wonderful marriage benefits either since they can't produce more tax payers :)

My point is not null and void... A GAY COUPLE CAN NOT REPRODUCE MORE TAX PAYERS ON THEIR OWN. That is what the tax breaks were implimented for. Uncle sam is happy to suppoert people who can bring them more tax payers. A married gay couple are not capable of that on thiere own. That point stands whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelivent

Avenger:

MagnoliaSimms.............Just to clear something up.... I am not an unskiled laborer.. I do hold a degree in engineering and have many many certififates for completed studies..

Congratulations. So you have a degree. That still doesn't make you entitled to what other people get paid.

The fact is corporatins exploit workers as unskilled yet few if any would be able to accomplish any work there labor force accomplishes. I actuall don't have a clue what my boss makes. The point I was attempting to drive home is we ALL endure things just because not everyone is equal .

In the eyes of the law, everyone should be treated equally. That's what the 14th Amendment is about. It's not about fair pay, it's about fair treatment by the government. We can't have laws that are against black people that don't apply to white people, so why can we have laws that apply to heterosexual people that don't apply to straight people?

Not everything is meant to be equal and when people make choices they also must live with the consiquinces of those choices. the world should not have to adjust simply because we make bad decisions

Ah, I see. You think that being gay is a choice. When did you make the choice to be straight? I never made the choice, I was just attracted to people of the opposite gender. It wasn't a conscious choice on my part. Was your orientation? At what age did you make it? How did you come to that choice? Why did you make that choice? What factors were involved in your decision? I'd like to know the answer to all of these for your choice to be straight.

My point is not null and void... A GAY COUPLE CAN NOT REPRODUCE MORE TAX PAYERS ON THEIR OWN.

Yes they can. I know a gay couple that is raising a son. It was through fertility, but they have a son.

Besides, my boyfriend and I don't want kids. We never plan on having any, yet we can be married any time we want. I could go to a courthouse tomorrow and get married to him, and we could never have any kids, so that reasoning for marriage is invalid. Having children is not a requirement for marriage. Infertile couples and old couples past the age of bearing children can get married. Again, it doesn't apply to them either. Why aren't we forbidding old people from marrying?

That is what the tax breaks were implimented for. Uncle sam is happy to suppoert people who can bring them more tax payers. A married gay couple are not capable of that on thiere own. That point stands whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelivent

If the tax breaks were just for the sake of having children, they would only apply to people who have children. They are for married couples.

so why can we have laws that apply to heterosexual people that don't apply to straight people?

What I meant was why can we have laws that apply to heterosexual people that don't apply to gay people? That's what I get for not proofreading.

Sometimes it's amazing how different the point you think you are making and the BS you're actually saying can be. Thanks for reminding me of that Avengers, because damn. It's like you pulled the different parts of that analogy out of a hat and played ad libs with them.

Many people live with inequalities. Some people actually try to do something about them. One of the great things about America. I don't know why you seem to think they should shutup and take it.

As to the whole kids/marriage thing, as others have said, the ability or desire to bring children into the world has no legal relationship to marriage. It's not a requirement, it's not even a factor. If it's inconsequential for heterosexuals, it should be equally so for homosexuals.

Avenger,

Please please please tell me you have some basic reading comprehension and that you read my entire comment before you replied... no wait, if you did say that - you'd look dumber..

A GAY COUPLE CAN NOT REPRODUCE MORE TAX PAYERS ON THEIR OWN

and here is where i make your "point" null and void.. are you ready ???

all the marriages of heterosexual couples, where one party or the other is sterile - shouldn't have all those wonderful marriage benefits either since they can't produce more tax payers :)

let me guess.. you missed that part didn't you ?? or you just didn't want to acknowledge that your entire "point" of heterosexuals marriage benefits was for the possibility of couple producing more taxpayers when in fact - i just gave you an example that kills your "point" ... those heterosexual couples where one or the other party is sterile will NOT produce more tax payers on their own ! and yet, they are given marriage benefits.. why is that ??

hmmm.. how about trying THAT one on for size !

now, listen up and listen good - YOUR POINT IS NULL AND VOID !

NEXT !

Phoenyx13........Your rebutals indicate that your opinion is that gays are gay because of "choice" which is my belief as well. You saiy gays can have a child outside the homosexual relationship . If this is the case ( which I think it is ) THEYARE NIOT BORN GAY but chose to be that way. and if that is true ( which in my opinion it is ) we should not be changing laws to please gays simply bdcause of thier lifestyle choice and a choice that 98% of the rest of the world does not make.

In additon I will once again add that a straight couple is capable of reproducing more tax payers , ( unless there is a medical reason they can not or they simply chose not to) but a gay couple can NEVER within their relationship produce more tax payers without a 3rd party internention. keep trying to justify your non-sense because that is all your spitting out.

Avenger:

Your rebutals indicate that your opinion is that gays are gay because of "choice" which is my belief as well. You saiy gays can have a child outside the homosexual relationship . If this is the case ( which I think it is ) THEYARE NIOT BORN GAY but chose to be that way. and if that is true ( which in my opinion it is ) we should not be changing laws to please gays simply bdcause of thier lifestyle choice and a choice that 98% of the rest of the world does not make.

Again, I'll ask when you made the choice not to be gay. How did you come to that decision? At what age did you decide that? Why did you come to that conclusion? If being gay is a choice, then so is being straight. I want to know your thought process on deciding to be attracted to the opposite gender.

Besides all that, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from majority rule. That is why we don't have a true democracy. If we only made laws based on what the majority wanted, we'd have a very different country. We'd probably still have slavery, at least in part of the country. You okay with that? We probably wouldn't have women voters. Most men didn't want that.

This isn't about what the majority wants. This is to give the minority the same rights that we have as straight people enjoy. It in no way affects you if they're given the same rights you have already.

In additon I will once again add that a straight couple is capable of reproducing more tax payers , ( unless there is a medical reason they can not or they simply chose not to) but a gay couple can NEVER within their relationship produce more tax payers without a 3rd party internention. keep trying to justify your non-sense because that is all your spitting out.

And no children are required for a marriage. Like I said, I'm never having children, I've stated that outright to my family and friends, so it's not a secret. Yet, I can still get married and get all of the tax breaks that go with it. So "creating more taxpayers" means nothing. Besides, as Phoenyx13 pointed out, many other families have to go through third parties to have children, whether through fertility treatments or adoption. Should we strip away their family status too?

Avenger,

you bore me and obviously don't know many people in life.

1. gay people don't choose to be gay. seriously, who would choose to be gay ? especially with the way they are treated by hateful people such as yourself. also, educate yourself and look up recent articles involving epigenetics, they are finding out that your sexual orientation is genetic.

2. ANYONE (heterosexual or homosexual) can have sex with someone they are not necessarily attracted to. it happens quite a lot in the heterosexual world. just because a heterosexual male may have sex with an overweight heterosexual brunette female doesn't mean that he is actually attracted to her. it also doesn't mean that he's not actually attracted to skinny heterosexual blonde females.

3. once again, your argument fails, not all straight couples are not capable of reproducing more tax payers, you admitted that yourself which is funny since your original argument was that all straight couples get the benefits because they CAN reproduce more tax payers. so you shot down your own argument. there are many straight couples that CANNOT produce more tax payers and there are many straight couples that MUST have a 3rd party intervention in order to produce more tax payers. if you say gay people should be denied marriage benefits for the reason of not being able to produce more tax payers, then you should equally advocate all those straight couples in those situations to be denied the right to be married too since they do not fit into your guidelines.

you can't have it both ways, its one or the other. so either you advocate for the infertile straight couples, straight couples who need 3rd party intervention to reproduce AND gay couples to be denied the right to be married.. or you just flat out admit your argument is null and void.

either way, the only one spitting out nonsense would be you.

or you can just really admit that you want to treat homosexuals as 2nd class citizens and deny them the right to get married simply because you feel its "icky" and you have a lot of hatred towards them.

and if that's the case - you lose :) you can't make laws based on what you feel is "icky".. sorry ! :)

try again ?

Avenger, sexual orientation is NOT a choice -- if it were, tell us when you chose yours. However, it would not matter if it were a choice, because we are constitutionally protected in our choices as well as our inborn traits. You have produced no evidence that homosexuality is a choice; trying to claim that if homosexuals choose artificial insemination, IVF, or some other way to have a biological child means that their sexual orientation is a choice is laughable at best, because one has nothing to do with the other. Many, many heterosexual couples choose those same methods in order to have biological children -- does that mean they chose to be heterosexual? By your "logic," it does.

The government does not care if a "straight couple" can or does produce more taxpayers. No state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, which is why the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children are allowed to marry.

Please, do us all a favor: DON'T keep trying to justify your nonsense, because that is all YOU are spitting out.

The reason married couples have the benefits they do ( survivor SSI benefits, tax breaks and others) is Because odds are they will be producing more tax payers.

That is the single most asinine statement I've heard in a long time. Reproduction has NO place in determination of married benefits.

If that were true, persons older than 70 would not get benefits. Persons who are sterile would not get benefits.

Seriously, this is what you're going to argue? Please get an education before trying again.

allswell .. reproduction has everything to do with the tax and other benefits associated with marriage.

I will go through it one more time since you and others can't do the math or the see the governments logic

An average straight couple marries and has 2 kids ( was 3.5 not long ago)

Now there are 4 people to pay taxes for roughly 45 years that = 180 years of tax collection when the parents retire + an additional 25 or more years from each of the kids so 50 more years of tax collection generated from the original parents.

Thats 210 years of tax colection from just the first generation of children and the parents.

as the parents age to 70 as you suggest abd they retire they begin to collect SSI, BUT there are still two people paying taxes ( the kids )to offset that expenature so even when the parents stop working they are revenue neutral to the government.

As the kids marry and have the average of 2 children then there are 6 additional taxpayers from the original couple and the multiplying effect continues through each generation.

Now tlets look at the gay couple...

they marry and produce 0 offspring in the marriage ( biologically impossible)

They pay taxes for 45 years x 2 = 90 years of taxes

Thats it 90 years ... no additonal taxpayers produced.... vs. 210 years from just one generation from the average straight couple.

When the gay couple retires they do not replace the tax revenues it will take to pay them for SSI and medicare and such unlike the straight couple did so they become a revenue burden.

So to simplifyu it for you all

So just to make the tax revenue more clear

If we take a modest income of $30,000 and use a base line 10% tax the results are at the time of retirement of 70 as you suggest would be:

The straight couple will genrate $630,000 in tax revenue +and additional $60,000 if they live to be 90.

The gay couple will generate $270,000 total.

There is no equality in those numbers.

Avenger, no state in the US requires proof of either the intent or ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license, which is why the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children are allowed to marry anywhere in this country. The government has no interest in whether people plan to or can have children.

Moreover, marriage is not a requirement for procreation.

Avenger

reproduction has everything to do with the tax and other benefits associated with marriage.

nope, sorry. state, local nor federal government ever ask you if you are having children when you wish to get married, so in the beginning your argument is shot down.. but for the sake of boredom i will continue to rip your argument to shreds.

An average straight couple marries and has 2 kids ( was 3.5 not long ago)

actually false, you are forgetting about straight couples who do not want children, never have children or are sterile (by one party, or both). if you wish to not include them, then you are advocating that they should be denied marriage benefits as well since they don't fit into your narrow perceptions.. let's continue, shall we ? :)

Now tlets look at the gay couple...

they marry and produce 0 offspring in the marriage ( biologically impossible)

nope, that's false. as i pointed out already, homosexuals can and do reproduce. there is IVF (which is used by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) and having the children outside of the relationship (which happens with heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) among a variety of other ways. again, your "logic" is disproven, but you seem to love being willfully ignorant of the facts, so let's continue :) you are quite fun to school :)

When the gay couple retires they do not replace the tax revenues it will take to pay them for SSI and medicare and such unlike the straight couple did so they become a revenue burden.

with your example, this may be true, but this is not a true case statement for all heterosexual or homosexual couples. again, all you need is one instance to disprove your case and you've gotten it multiple times but wish to remain willfully ignorant.. if you choose to remain ignorant, there's no help for you, but definitely own up to your ignorance and hatred, ok ?

There is no equality in those numbers.

you are correct, in your biased example there was no equality in those numbers. it was not a true example for it didn't account for all situations or even remotely close, you purposely chose a scenario to fit your narrow hate-filled views and decided to spout it off as the truth even when you were proven wrong.

so, in your words:

So to simplifyu it for you all

especially YOU -- your example doesn't hold water. it won't hold over in court, it won't hold over anywhere except in your narrow perception of the world which is filled with hatred towards homosexuals. that is not reality, that is not real life. i highly suggest you get over it and deal with it, or you will be very upset in the future when homosexuals are granted the right to marry.

sorry for your luck ! now if you have anything new that hasn't been shot down yet, i welcome the debate, until then - educate yourself so you don't show off your current low IQ which you obtained with your 8th grade education :)

thanks !!! :)

You are correct that no state requires reproduction for marriage. However the benefits associated with marriage , the tax breaks and survivor benefits are tied to the fact that reproduction is likely to occure in a marriage. If you think otherwise your blind to the numbers. i didn't even add in the SSI tax and medcare taxes which would nearly triple the revenues generated from a straight coupld widening the gap enen more..

It is all about the money. If it were not for the marriage benefits gays would have no interest in fighting for legalization. That is the primary focus is the money. When our government looks at the numbers and sees that smae sex marriage will add costs to entitlment expenditures you can rest assured that the defense of marriage ast will stand.

Avenger,

It is all about the money. If it were not for the marriage benefits gays would have no interest in fighting for legalization. That is the primary focus is the money. When our government looks at the numbers and sees that smae sex marriage will add costs to entitlment expenditures you can rest assured that the defense of marriage ast will stand.

hahahah !! wow, way to go :) i will gladly exchange a bet with you on that one :) i don't care how much you want to bet, but i will take it :)

what's that old saying that i'm thinking of to describe Avenger ? oh yea "a fool and his money are soon parted" :) take me up on my bet Avenger !

WRONG, Avenger. There are approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage, and they are just as important to gays as they are to straights, including:

• Right to benefits while married:
  • employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
  • per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
  • Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
  • sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
• Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
  • veteran's disability
  • Supplemental Security Income
  • disability payments for federal employees
  • Medicaid
  • property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
  • income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
  • wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax^[3]
• Joint and family-related rights:
  • joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
  • joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
  • family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
  • next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
  • custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
  • domestic violence intervention
  • access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
• Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
• Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
• Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
• Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
• Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
• Court notice of probate proceedings
• Domestic violence protection orders
• Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
• Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
• Funeral and bereavement leave
• Joint adoption and foster care
• Joint tax filing
• Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
• Legal status with stepchildren
• Making spousal medical decisions
• Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
• Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
• Right of survivorship of custodial trust
• Right to change surname upon marriage
• Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
• Right to inheritance of property
• Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
• For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
  • Social Security pension
  • veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
  • survivor benefits for federal employees
  • survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
  • additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
  • $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
  • continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
  • renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
  • continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
  • payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
  • making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

Responsibilities

• Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
  • veteran's medical and home care benefits
  • housing assistance
  • housing loans for veterans
  • child's education loans
  • educational loan repayment schedule
  • agricultural price supports and loans
  • eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
• Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
• Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
• Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
• Providing financial support for raising children born of the marriage.

lol you spent a LOT of time digging up really irrational and irrrelivent stuff to my sumation. so far however i haven't read the words bigot or homophobe which are normally some of the most used words used when someone opposes the gay agenda.

ErinNJ..... you once again re-enforce the fact that the gay marriage movement is in deed only about the money not human rights or civil rights. The money is all that matters and the money generated by additional taxpayers is all that matters too the government.

just too add i did not include the medicare and SSI taxes generated which would more than double the money differences generated by one straight couple VS one gay couple.

allswell .. reproduction has everything to do with the tax and other benefits associated with marriage.

Avenger, you're talking out of your ass.

Absolutely no correlation between reproduction and taxation has been made in the history of this nation. Marriage benefits have never been designated solely for those capable of reproduction.

You're putting up a strawman and hiding behind it like a coward unable to face the reality.

Avenger, that list does not include many of the rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage, including the right to make medical and other decisions if one's spouse is incapacitated. Furthermore, there are many rights in that list that have nothing to do with money.

BTW, how many opposite-sex couples do you think got married for the financial benefits?

I think it's time to stop feeding the trolls. Avenger is firmly locked inside that little bubble that s/he made for him/herself and no amount of logic, sanity or reason will penetrate.

Besides, you're not the Jerk Whisperer.

The only reason to even bother with a legal, civil marriage is the benefits. Which are much more than simply monetary. Something as simple yet vital as the right to make decisions for an invalid spouse comes to mind. Married people without kids don't actually get many tax breaks or save much money. The benefit is in their legal relationship to one another, which marriage provides.

Heck most of the monetary benefits tied to kids apply just as well with single parents as they do with married couples (divorced single dad with custody here, so I'm well versed), so that's even more @!$%# on Avengers theory. There ARE benefits given for having kids, but they're not restricted to married couples. A gay parent would receive them, married or not.

you're not the Jerk Whisperer.

That's what it says on my resume!

Wait, I thought that was for chicken!

You mean I can't use you to find myself a nice Jamaican restaurant?

I was going to type something rather dirty about "using" me, allswell, but I will refrain, since others can read this, too, and might get the wrong idea about us.

I will say that, as a rule, I like Caribbean food...

Erin and allswell,

OooOoOoOooOohhhhhh !!!! soooooo **scandalous** !!

i like it :) tell me more !! :)

I was going to type something rather dirty about "using" me, allswell, but I will refrain, since others can read this, too, and might get the wrong idea about us.

Well I was more thinking like a dowsing rod but sure ;)

Phoenyx, what I had in mind does NOT involve toaster ovens -- this time.

Erin,

WHAT ?!?! oh phooey ! ... now its not **scandalous**

hmpf :(

Well now I'm afraid...

<.<

I said "this time,' Phoenyx -- believe me, they WILL be part of the picture, sooner rather than later.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! (Evil laugh)

YAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *grabs big bowl of popcorn* i'm ready !!!! :)

and sometimes, the internet redeems itself.

Every state has rural areas filled to the eye balls with uber religious folk.

plenty of religious inhabiting the cities too...

Happily, the percentage of religious people declines every year. Pity the trend didn't start 600 years ago.

Thinkforyourself, perhaps you should know, a lot of religious people are fully in favor of marriage equality. Episcopalians for instance. The National Cathedral in Washington DC, are holding same sex wedding ceremonies, and Father Luis Leon, the priest who gave the prayer at the inauguration Monday, performs same sex weddings at the church where the Obamas attended Monday morning. My own church welcomes everyone, and even last year our priest married his long time love, in a very moving ceremony, full choir in attendance, bishops, and congregation. Please don't paint with such a broad brush.

We need to differentiate between "religious" and "fundamentalist." As Otto points out, there are plenty of religious folk who are on the leftward side of the political divide, and to alienate them simply because some on the left don't see any difference between a liberal Episcopalian/Unitarian/etc. and a Southern Baptist is to do a disservice to ourselves...

This used to be "One Nation Under God". For the last several years, it's become obvious God's law no longer has a place in the United States of America. America has become the United States of Sodom & Gomorrah. The sanctity of marriage has been defiled under the guise of Equal Rights. The banner is carried by bold atheism under the "Free Speech" protection of the First Amendment, but these same people would deny the same First Amendment protection to those practicing "Free Exercise of Religion", as they do in this comment section by their degradation and condemnation of the religious. You hypocrites!

Geowil I kind of resent that statement I am a farmer and a gay uber liberal. My location to the southern baptist, which i might add their are about one every half a mile. Has allowwed me to chage many minds.

Damion I suggest that you do a litte reading on how "one nation under god" got it orgins.

No Damien, this was not "One Nation Under God", it was "One Nation, indivisible" until that little gem was added. And that is what DIVIDES us.

Neko Samurai - Geowil I kind of resent that statement I am a farmer and a gay uber liberal. My location to the southern baptist, which i might add their are about one every half a mile. Has allowwed me to chage many minds.

There's definitely a far stronger correlation between bigotry and the SBC than there is to living in a rural area, although Geowil has a point that bigotry is bred from a lack of awareness that some of your friends and neighbors are gay (it's much easier to be unaware of that in a rural area than a big city).

And while I love living in a rural area myself, my condolences on living so close to so many Southern Baptists.

Skrekk i apperciate the sentiment but all the SBC do is drive me to do more and prove them wrong.

God's laws have never had anything to do with this country. In fact, "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" weren't added until the '50's and they're NOT Christian specific.

This used to be "One Nation Under God".

This was never one nation under your god. It was one nation under all gods and none at the same time. Establishment Clause. Eat it.

Establishment Clause. Eat it.

OK, I'm stealing that one, allswell -- made me laugh out loud!

Damien:

This used to be "One Nation Under God".

The only reason that was adopted as the United States' motto was because people in the 1950's were afraid of communists. In God We Trust didn't appear on paper money until then. Before that, our country's motto was "E pluribus unum" meaning "out of many, one."

For the last several years, it's become obvious God's law no longer has a place in the United States of America.

And it shouldn't. This country was founded on religious freedom, so we shouldn't have laws that support one religion's beliefs over another's.

America has become the United States of Sodom & Gomorrah. The sanctity of marriage has been defiled under the guise of Equal Rights.

How so? Marriage isn't a strictly religious ceremony. Atheists can marry, and have always been able to in this country. When you get married in a church, you still need to get a marriage certificate from the government. It's a contract; it's not religious. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. They're different.

This has to do with marriage being a right that everyone should have access to, and that we should all get equal protections under the law because of that. Your religion shouldn't even weigh into this conversation. Our goverment is free from religion, as it should be.

The banner is carried by bold atheism under the "Free Speech" protection of the First Amendment, but these same people would deny the same First Amendment protection to those practicing "Free Exercise of Religion", as they do in this comment section by their degradation and condemnation of the religious.

As an atheist, I have no problem with the religious. I have no problem with people practicing their religion in their day to day lives. However, I do have a problem with people passing laws that reflect their religious views because I do not share them.

One of my closest friends is a Baptist, and she and I can agree and disagree on things and still be friends. She practices her religion, and I've even been to church with her because I know it's important to her. That's how freedom of religion works. She's free to practice hers, I'm free to practice mine. And neither religion should get preference from our government.

You hypocrites!

Pot, meet kettle.

OK, I'm stealing that one, allswell -- made me laugh out loud!

*puts a check mark in the box*

Sarah, In God We Trust has been on our coins since the 1860s I believe, but you are otherwise correct.

JustMe, it has been on our coins intermittently since the 1800s, not continuously -- and it was not adopted as the motto, and mandated to appear on currency as well as coins, until 1956.

Neko,

I did not say everyone in a rural area was religious, just that there are a lot. My family (immediate parents/grand parents) also came from farming communities in Ohio and were not overly religious either.

How exactly is my "survival" dependent on heterosexuals? That statement makes us sound like vampires or something. Gay people happen--period. If straight people are so uptight about gay people, then they should stop making them.

Hey Paul.. does your comment apply to heterosexual couples that cannot have children too? Is their lifestyle pointless?

You know, I really don't care if homosexuals get married or not. Makes no difference to me. It doesn't affect me at all. Most that I know are nice, law abiding citizens who never hurt anyone else. All they want out of life is to live happy and free of fear of persecution. However, gay marriage laws should never be able to force any church to marry them. That still leaves them civil services and the Episcopalians.

No church has to marry anyone that they don't want straight or gay

gay marriage laws should never be able to force any church to marry them.

Same-sex marriage laws do not force churches to do any such thing. No church is forced to perform marriages that violate the tenets of that church; ask any divorced Catholic who tries to remarry about that. The only marriages that are recognized by the government in this country are civil marriages; what your cult or any other chooses to do regarding marriage is its own business.

Paul

Cory finally thank you......though I always thought the Gay lifestyle was kind of pointless...if everyone agreed with them, there would be no more humans....it is a "species" completely reliant on heteral sexuals to survive...but to each there own

apparently you are under the mistaken impression that just because a male or female happens to be homosexual they are instantly rendered sterile. guess what ?? THAT'S NOT THE CASE :)

homosexual males and homosexual females can still reproduce with heterosexual males and heterosexual females or even other homosexual males and homosexual females.. and i'm sure you will say "well, that's outside of their relationship ! *gasp*" or something stupid like that.. to which i would reply "and heterosexuals NEVER reproduce outside of their relationship or marriage ?" ... guess what ? IT HAPPENS :) and then i'm sure you'll say something like "but they aren't attracted to that gender !" and to which i would reply "so you've never heard of a heterosexual guy or heterosexual girl having a child to someone they weren't attracted to ? ya know, the product of a drunken one-night stand ?"

so in the end, just because you are a homosexual, doesn't mean you can't reproduce, so they are not reliant upon heterosexuals to survive, they can procreate just as easily :)

next ?

Agree but too much dialog, not hard to grasp, equal civil rights for all

The heart wants what the heart wants, and it is no one else's business.

It's way past time for our American society to grow up, and behave like the enlightened civilization we perceive ourselves to be. Equal rights and equal protections for all is supposed to be what America is all about. It's time to live up to our ideology.

Excellent point. The whole idea behind "rights" is that they are conferred without referring to the votes of a society. Even the Founders understood this when they crafted Amendment IX; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many of them were wary of enumerating a bill of rights because some people would be tempted to declare that any right not listed in the BoR didn't exist because it wasn't mentioned...

Capt Tripps - Why do folks keep presenting that as some laudable idea, it's a horrible thing.

I agree in principle and think Iowa achieved equality the right way, through the courts rather than through the legislature or a public referendum. That's precisely why we have a constitution and courts, to protect the rights of individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

But for those people who are currently denied their rights I can't begrudge them if they don't want to wait until a suitable court case eventually gets ruled the right way. If they can gain equal rights through the democratic process, so be it.

Yea, I just feel it sets a horrible precedent, especially in places where gay marriage isn't anywhere near accepted. Then again the fact that most states can amend their constitutions with a mere majority vote is kind of scary as well, glad the Big One basically requires 3/4s of the country to agree.

Capt Tripps - Yea, I just feel it sets a horrible precedent, especially in places where gay marriage isn't anywhere near accepted.

Not just a horrible precedent, but it avoids the judicial precedent a court case would set and which could then be used on other issues involving discrimination based on sexual orientation (employment, housing, etc). I totally agree that it's the wrong way to go, but on the other hand many states have no precedents which would help establish a favorable ruling based on state law.

People who hate us for who we are be cast aside, people who love people for who they may become continue to inherit the earth and prosper.

I wish that were actually true Mr. Magneto, but there is still far too much anti-gay attitude among the young...just witness all of the gay bashing and bullying that goes on in our schools yet today. The problem though does lie with the older generations because THEY are the ones who feed these anti-gay fears into the minds of the young. And yes, far too much of that fear comes from the "religious" who try to force their beliefs on everyone. That is not what their Christ supposedly taught, according to their "Holy Bible." Remember, he supposedly had only one commandment...to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as you would have him love you." I guess these "christians" don't really want to be loved by anyone other than who THEY choose to have love them.

Lol.

I know what you mean, in New Hampshire same sex marriage is legal and as of yet, God has not destroyed us. Maybe tomorrow. LMAO

And those are usually the same people that have the most skeletons hiding in their closet. And if their so worried about God's judgement maybe they should be looking in the mirror and at their fellow politicians. If we go according to the "Seven Deadly Sins" (wrath, greed, and pride to name a few that are notoriously practiced by politicians), Washington D.C. will be the first place to fall if God strikes down judgement.

Shanad, the Christ told Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world," but the Tealibanis have been striving for a generation to try to shape our world in the image of their misinterpretation of what their messiah Saul of Tarsus wanted...

And just how do you know it WON"T bring down the wrath of God?

And just how do you know it WON"T bring down the wrath of God?

The same way I know it won't incur Poseidon's wrath either.

Conjuring Cat - the Tealibanis have been striving for a generation to try to shape our world in the image of their misinterpretation of what their messiah Saul of Tarsus wanted...

Very true - they definitely appear to be followers of Paul rather than Jesus.

And just how do you know it WON"T bring down the wrath of God?

If the "wrath of god" has been coming down on anyone lately, it seems to have been the Bible Belt.

. . . . . you do realize that gay people are born from heterosexuals, right? They aren't a separate species that would "go extinct" just because certain individual members cease to reproduce. It's the same way that clergy aren't extinct, despite many having vows of celibacy. And that's not even touching on the fact that you can reproduce without engaging in physical sex.

Chris-374639 - If a gay man marries a gay woman is it still a gay marriage? It seems to me that "gay" anything would have gone extinct long ago if they were truly not procreating.

Sounds like you've confused a legal contract with procreation.

I do realize that. In my original post I put "(sarcasm)" at the end of the post but it somehow disappeared.

The branding needs to be changed. It's not "gay marriage," it's simply "marriage equality." So ask someone, do you agree with the idea of marriage equality?

That's it. Yes or no. Full stop.

Chris-374639

If a gay man marries a gay woman is it still a gay marriage?

So long as somebody does the dishes and somebody takes out the trash.

Chris, when I'm being snarky I put a "/sarc off" tag at the end of my post, or, if I'm pretending a first-person persona, put the statement in quotes. Sometimes both, i. e. "Gawd kreeated Adum an' Eve, not Adum an' Steve!!!1!1!one!!"... /sarc off

And when one impersonates a Tealibani, don't forget the mutiple exclamation points interspersed with accidental 1's and the occasional "one" just to add another dash of snark. And a well-placed "LOL!!!1!1!" is also a nice touch...

not really sure equal rights, and the rights to do drugs are really the same thing. and although i personally agree with both, both should be legal, if one had to be prioritized, it should be equal rights not getting stoned...

yea i agree, i think my opinions are a little biased lol...

move to iran. problem solved. :)

PS - this is an article on gay marriage, not the economic state of rhode island. Try to pay attention before ranting next time. :)

but why does everyone else have to suffer?

Because liberals don't believe that killing ignorant conservative bigots outright is even necessary, let alone a good thing. We understand that bigotry eventually self terminates, causing it's own suffering on the way out.

I have to admit though it IS sort of fun watching those who have caused so much suffering suffer themselves.

why does everyone else have to suffer?

huh? Who would be suffering by allowing civil rights for all tax-paying Americans citizens?

Well, you see, Sam, the Tealibanis believe they can't practice their "faith" if they can't force everyone else to practice it too...

the biggest problem with "screwed up kids" are straight couples who shouldn't be parents..you know, like teenagers who are taught by "the right" all about abstinence as "the" way of birth control. lol.

by the way, any proof that gays adopting kids "screws them up"?

Vermontguy: I heard that the children of a gay couple are usually well rounded and straight. It has something to do with being raised in a home where the parents love each other. Adoption is a decision made for the love of a child. How can that screw anybody up?

cat: hey, I agree with you and that concept. If my post wasn't clear I should reword it.

I heard that the children of a gay couple are usually well rounded and straight.

cat, it's this part the Tealibanis can't stand--they don't want well-rounded citizens, only more shrieking Tealibanis...

Niv541

I believe Casey Anthony was straight, so she deserves children more than a gay couple that wants to provide a loving home?

What does it matter to you? nobodies forcing you to marry anyone.

Jasper, gays aren't dictating to anyone - you have it backwards. You are trying to force your personal beliefs on me. You have no realistic, logical, or legal standing in your attempts to make me a second-class citizen. You don't have to accept me, but you DO need to keep your nose out of my business. You don't pay my mortgage, you don't pay my bills, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to tell me who I can marry. Now, if I can successfully take away so many of the rights you take for granted from you, then you would have a right to bitch and fight me for those rights. This is a matter of equality for all of the citizens of this country. You don't have to like me, you don't have to accept me, you don't have to change your existence to one that I would prefer. Just get the hell out of my life.

the homophobic bigots play "victim" very well.. The irony is amazing..THEY are denying rights to others, yet somehow they are the victim? lol. "oh, poor me, those evil gays are DICTATING to me"...even though that makes zero sense.

Well, vermont, isn't that the way of bullies from time immemorial? The instant someone calls them out, they go running to Mommy that they're the victims...

You missed the point I believe. Gays NEVER had the right to marry prior here so they NEVER had those rights taken from them..... Second point people who do not support gay marriage are not necessarily 'homophobic bigots'. It is possible they have different beliefs on what a marriage should be.

You see, for some people it just feels wrong. Similar to knowing that stealing is wrong as well as other transgressions. I am sure the response to this would be "Then don't marry someone of your same sex", but that is not it either.... I think that stealing is wrong and I would not like that my neighbor or whatever is a theif either.... See the correlation? If you think something is wrong, you don't feel you should defend or support someone else who is doing that wrong. Finally, no, I am not directly comparing stealing and being gay, I am merely stating that to me they both feel wrong.

You see, for some people it just feels wrong. Similar to knowing that stealing is wrong as well as other transgressions. I am sure the response to this would be "Then don't marry someone of your same sex", but that is not it either.... I think that stealing is wrong and I would not like that my neighbor or whatever is a theif either.... See the correlation?

There is no correlation. It doesn't hurt you or your marriage if the gay couple who lives next door marries. It does hurt you if your nextdoor neighbor is a thief and steals from you.

You missed the point I believe. Gays NEVER had the right to marry prior here so they NEVER had those rights taken from them.....

If that logic made sense, women wouldn't have gotten the right to vote on the grounds that they never had the right to vote in the first place.

If you disagree with a gay about ANYTHING, you are homophobic. If you disagree with a minority about ANYTHING you are a bigot. Well I'm neither. And I disagree with redefining the term marriage and I disagree with a lot of the socialistic nonsense coming out of the minority communities. Diversity of opinion is healthy for America. Stereotyping and name calling is not.

There is an absolute correlation, if you do not see it, then I can not help you.

The second point you tried to make was in response to the argument that gays had their rights taken away.

Mike,

your only "correlation" is based on the fact that you don't like it. guess what ? you can't make legislation based upon things you don't like :)

homosexuals being married does not violate any of your rights. stealing does violate the property ownership rights of the person who was stolen from, which means the person who was stolen from no longer owns the possession that was stolen to which they originally had ownership rights to.

so, next ?

There is no correlation, Mike; that is the same dumb argument the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in the 1960s, and it is still just as dumb. No wonder you people keep losing in the courts.

Legalizing same-sex marriage does not harm you or anyone else. Being homosexual is not and never has been a crime in this country, while stealing has always been illegal (throughout the world's history) because there are issues of consent and victimization involved. So basically you are comparing apples to oranges, Mike.

If you cannot see that, then no one can help you.

FYI, same-sex marriage was legal in many ancient civilizations, and our own Native Americans performed them. The state of California allowed same-sex marriage, then outlawed it -- so their rights WERE taken away in California. However, no one is saying that rights across the country were "taken away" -- the argument has always been that those rights have been DENIED, which is the truth.

jasper- marriage isn't being redefined. It's still a legal contract between two adults. Churches still can decide if they want to perform a ceremony or not for whomever they want. The only change is removing the gender discrimination that currently requires one of each gender in the contract (in many states).

Mike-78632 - Second point people who do not support gay marriage are not necessarily 'homophobic bigots'. It is possible they have different beliefs on what a marriage should be.

Right.....just like how people who oppose mixed-race marriage aren't racists and dumb bigots.

Just an FYI Mike, if you think you deserve special rights and privileges which should be denied to certain other citizens, you're not just a dumb bigot but you're a greedy bigot too.

And I disagree with redefining the term marriage and I disagree with a lot of the socialistic nonsense coming out of the minority communities.

Definition of marriage already includes same-sex unions. All that's being changed is the wording in law.

Pity for you.

I thought satan already denounced god?

Where is god mentioned in the United States Consitution? OH wait, he's not.. therefore your god's laws are not part of our secular laws.

Save your religion for church, it has no place in our government

you live in iran? (I hope!) :)

hate and bigotry have no place in freedom-loving america, but unfortunately people like you still insist on polluting our society. :)

@hugh betcha 432:

sexual degenerates have no place in our country

so revokation of citizenship based on non-missionary position male on female intercourse?

Hey Hugh... Sandusky is not a "homo"! He is a pedophile!! Big difference! Pedophiles are mostly straight men/women (yes women too) who have and act upon their sexual feelings for children. Of EITHER sex.

Actually, approximately 90% of pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men (probably a lot like Hugh, and Jerry Sandusky).

Rob Norton - The only ones who should care about this are gay people.

And anyone who cares about basic civil rights.

then I hear gays saying we just want people to mind their own business. what about the billions spent on aids research and keeping them alive. do we have any say in that??

You do realize that heterosexuals contract AIDS, too, don't you?

I'm a non-smoker. Don't I have a say in the billions spent on lung cancer research?

Hugh Hate to burst your bubble but straight black males have the highest percentage of hiv. The fact is that hiv is something that affects all of us so quit complianing about scientific research. I mean what has it ever give us well other that eradicatiing polio, small pox, ect.......

PS my data come from the CDC

First off, AIDS was created by heterosexuals. Read a history book sometime.

Second, reported as a rereg troll. Your very user name is a violation of the CoH.

Of the human race, you are not.

If christians starting having more babies our planet would sufficate. Great plan

I think the Catholics have been trying that tactic for centuries. Doesn't seem to work, does it?

So inter-racial marriage is wrong? After all people such as yourself made such claims in the past with regards to inter-racial marriage.

"slowly giving up"....???? what a silly observation to cite a change in social attitude. Blame it on what it is. The fear instilled by the churches et.al is groundless. It has been nothing but a bit fundraiser and people....at least some people....are wise to it. Let that stew in your warm water for a while.

DNFTT guys.

He's a rereg with a CoH violating user name. Report and move on.

Pray that everyone will be saved? HA HA HA HA HA

Right, just like how God saved everyone on 9/11?

Oh, right it was Gods will, no wait it was part of Gods divine plan and we should never question God.

We will be saved joe once we realize all the hate religion has wrought upon this nation. Belief in G*d is well and good but fan members like you who have written, interpreted and decided his word without conferring with HIM, have caused the problem. Go have a bake sale if you need money. Don't extort funds from the pulpit to promote intolerance.

DNFTT

Pre-empted does not necessarily mean overturned or blocked. It could also mean it would be moot. If the Supreme Court rules that state laws that block same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, then it doesn't matter whether Rhode Island's law is passed or not.

(Granted, the inclusion of the mention about the nature of that brief makes it sound like the author was talking about something that would block RI's law, if passed. But it might not have been meant that way. It might just have been an expansion upon the note that the court case had in effect begun, unrelated to the mention about pre-emption.)

Yes but these homo unions that you call marriages would still not be recognized by the federal government or the 39 other states that don't recognize it.

WRONG (as usual). When the Supreme Court rules that laws blocking same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, ALL such laws in ANY state will be invalid and unenforceable (just like sodomy laws were after the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas).

Please keep in mind that 31 states have recent laws on the books that forbid homo unions.

And those "recent laws" will be "recent history" after the Supreme Court rules.

Erin,

Just report him, his user name is a direct personal attack on you (look at his profile).

I have -- more than once -- both for his re-reg status, as well as for his domain name.

The fact that he's clueless about homosexuality, AIDS, pedophilia, the Constitution, federal law vs. state law -- and just about any other subject you could name -- just sweetens the pot.

Did you mean say Stan Smith from American Dad?

I love it when people cannot distinguish reality from TV fiction.

well many seem to think life is a reflection of TV, I remember when Bush blamed TV character Murphy Brown for single mothers....

PS.. MEDIA is a REFLECTION of Life, and only mirrors reality, don't like what you see and hear on the media, you must change the reality that media reflects..

( the acceptance of gays on TV is a reflection of acceptance of gays in reality.. in this case, it's a good thing )