Supreme court refuses to hear gay marriage appeals

[thraashman]

yes that is an issue and legal planning must be made and power of attorney be made out. issues like this happen now, husband wants to unplug brain dead wife and parents of the wife sue and it turns into a big expensive legal mess. but this is no reason it should be illegal.

If it were to be legalized it would just be a far more complex legal process than legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage and hetero marriage are functionally the same in almost every way. Polygamist marriage would probably end up requiring 100's of pages of legislation to codify how things work.

 

[OutHouse]

If it were to be legalized it would just be a far more complex legal process than legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage and hetero marriage are functionally the same in almost every way. Polygamist marriage would probably end up requiring 100's of pages of legislation to codify how things work.

I agree it is a more complex issue but it is still no reason to ban it.

 

[senseamp]

The Roberts Court has nothing to add to this subject. It's been decided without them. All they can do is embarrass themselves, especially the four conservative Catholics aside from Kennedy. So of course they are steering wide clear of it, hoping the lower courts will take care of it for them.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's true that opposition to gay marriage does not necessarily rely on what you do in your home, however opposition to gay marriage is still very much attempting to insert society into how people structure their interpersonal relationships.

So?

The same thing happens with straight marriages. I'm limited to only one wife, and cannot marry more than one woman -- but I'm fine with that. Btw, I am married to only one woman.

Are you married, eskimospy? I'm sure if you are, you're not complaining about how you're forced to marry one person at a time.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If it were to be legalized it would just be a far more complex legal process than legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage and hetero marriage are functionally the same in almost every way. Polygamist marriage would probably end up requiring 100's of pages of legislation to codify how things work.

You are right, and the poly community recognises this and at this time are not asking for poly marriage to be legally recognised (well, not the community at large, you can probably find some fringe group that is). Right now we are still working this out among ourselves, when we come up with a good solution that most of us can live with we will start to petition for the federal government to debate it.

Right now all the Poly community really wants is for our lifestyle to not be outright illegal. In many places it is a felony to claim you are in a poly relationship at all.

 

[Texashiker]

Are you married, eskimospy? I'm sure if you are, you're not complaining about how you're forced to marry one person at a time.

He is not married.

 

[OutHouse]

You are right, and the poly community recognises this and at this time are not asking for poly marriage to be legally recognised (well, not the community at large, you can probably find some fringe group that is). Right now we are still working this out among ourselves, when we come up with a good solution that most of us can live with we will start to petition for the federal government to debate it.

Right now all the Poly community really wants is for our lifestyle to not be outright illegal. In many places it is a felony to claim you are in a poly relationship at all.

:thumbsup:

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't think either should.

As tax payers, both should...that's been my arguement.

 

[fskimospy]

So?

The same thing happens with straight marriages. I'm limited to only one wife, and cannot marry more than one woman -- but I'm fine with that. Btw, I am married to only one woman.

Are you married, eskimospy? I'm sure if you are, you're not complaining about how you're forced to marry one person at a time.

I'm not married and I doubt I ever will be. Not really my thing. I think polygamy should be legal as well, though.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not married and I doubt I ever will be. Not really my thing. I think polygamy should be legal as well, though.

I hear ya, but I think you understood my point that this shouldn't be about what society tells others about how to structure their relationships because I think societal imput is important and should be considered, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to be exclusionary.

All the cries to "stay out of my marriage" and "stay out of my bed" is really nonsense. How about not annoucing to the world your sexuality and/or who you're married to -- then people would stay out, granted, you don't let them in.

 

[fskimospy]

All the cries to "stay out of my marriage" and "stay out of my bed" is really nonsense. How about not annoucing to the world your sexuality and/or who you're married to -- then people would stay out, granted, you don't let them in.

Because if you're in a car crash and you're unconscious your unmarried partner can't have access to you in the hospital. Your ability to transfer inheritance is severely circumscribed. Your ability to get social security survivor benefits is removed, your ability in some cases to share medical benefits is impossible (although less than before), visiting rights for tons of places, etc, etc, etc.

The idea that gay people want to be married to announce their sexuality is the height of hubris. There are tons of real and large benefits to a partnership of this sort. Gay people don't want you to come to their wedding and applaud, they want to be able to visit their dying partner in the hospital without jumping through hoops.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

All the cries to "stay out of my marriage" and "stay out of my bed" is really nonsense. How about not annoucing to the world your sexuality and/or who you're married to -- then people would stay out, granted, you don't let them in.

That's not an argument against same-sex marriage, that's an argument against freedom of speech. Gays aren't jumping up and saying, "HEY, LOOK AT ME, MARRYING A DUDE HERE, GET A LOAD OF THIS," they're saying, "could we get married too?" And then you come in and say, "WHOA, I don't want to hear about that! Stop announcing that stuff to the world!" That's not what it's about; the gay couple down the street could get married by a justice of the peace and you wouldn't hear peep about it except that they legally can't because bigots have decided that legal marriage is tantamount to publicly announcing your relationship to everyone and demanding affirmation. Bullshit. Just complete and utter bullshit. Stop spreading this lie that marriage is an "announcement to the world." It absolutely is not and you're a liar for saying so.

 

[Retro Rob]

Because if you're in a car crash and you're unconscious your unmarried partner can't have access to you in the hospital. Your ability to transfer inheritance is severely circumscribed. Your ability to get social security survivor benefits is removed, your ability in some cases to share medical benefits is impossible (although less than before), visiting rights for tons of places, etc, etc, etc.

Ummm..I agree, but this has nothing to do with what you're quoting.

There are tons of real and large benefits to a partnership of this sort. Gay people don't want you to come to their wedding and applaud, they want to be able to visit their dying partner in the hospital without jumping through hoops.

Why are you posting this? I don't think anything I said attacked the benefits of a legally recognized gay marriage.

Perhaps you were trying to quote someone else.

The idea that gay people want to be married to announce their sexuality is the height of hubris.

I'm confused. The point I was making is that once something becomes public, its fair game (and you know this).

 

[alzan]

Ummm..I agree, but this has nothing to do with what you're quoting.



Why are you posting this? I don't think anything I said attacked the benefits of a legally recognized gay marriage.

Perhaps you were trying to quote someone else.



I'm confused. The point I was making is that once something becomes public, its fair game (and you know this).

Fair game for what? Ridcule?

 

[fskimospy]

Ummm..I agree, but this has nothing to do with what you're quoting.

Why are you posting this? I don't think anything I said attacked the benefits of a legally recognized gay marriage.

Perhaps you were trying to quote someone else.

I'm confused. The point I was making is that once something becomes public, its fair game (and you know this).

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Opposition to gay marriage is definitely attempting to limit the scope of people's interpersonal relationships and in so doing it is limiting people's social and economic options as well.

 

[Retro Rob]

Fair game for what? Ridcule?

Well, yeah...making your personal life public is always a risk as far as that's concerned.

Gay married people get both ridicule and praise...it comes with the territory.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Opposition to gay marriage is definitely attempting to limit the scope of people's interpersonal relationships and in so doing it is limiting people's social and economic options as well.

Didn't say it didn't limit those other options. What you were quoting from my post was a simple rebuttal to gay people who complain about people ridiculing them and their relationships...I guess I didn't make that clear.

I was basically saying that's something we all have to deal with as humans, and if one doesn't want to deal with the criticism, he may as well not saying anything.

My bad. I wasn't speaking at all to the legal aspect, but I guess both are closely intertwined.

 

[Daverino]

Being gay is a mental illness that needs to be treated.

Why should society cater to people who refuse treatment?

Well that's your problem right there you neanderthal. You might as well believe that water is dry as well. There is no evidence, ANYWHERE, that homosexuality is a mental illness. So if you're basing your conclusions on a demonstrably false premise there really is no point engaging you.

You would be more likely to 'cure' a white man in a tanning salon than 'cure' a gay man with Jesus and straight porn.

 

[alzan]

Well, yeah...making your personal life public is always a risk as far as that's concerned.

Gay married people get both ridicule and praise...it comes with the territory.

I just find it odd that you use the phrase "it's fair game" after calling attention to the use of the -phobic and -phobia suffixes; you seem to want to curtail the use of those suffixes because they can rile or rankle people they're used on but someone's personal relationship, especially if it's out of the norm is "fair game"?

I realize you're simply stating the reality that some people will attempt to take advantage of that for demeaning remarks and bullying but to change the reality it's incumbent on us all to refrain from using language in a non-positive way.

Stable relationships be they homo- or hetero- benefit society and need to be encouraged.

 

[Retro Rob]

I just find it odd that you use the phrase "it's fair game" after calling attention to the use of the -phobic and -phobia suffixes; you seem to want to curtail the use of those suffixes because they can rile or rankle people they're used on but someone's personal relationship, especially if it's out of the norm is "fair game"?

Don't misunderstand me, lables are never good when they're meant to demean and beat detractors into silence.

That's not what I was endorsing. I'm speaking of just overall criticism.

 

[zinfamous]

And here you are, can't figure out why that tugboat won't hire you.

Yea, feeling really down about it.

They see your homophobia, and laugh because you don't understand what the "tug" in "tugboat crew" really means.

Your loss, obviously.

But just man-up for once and in no time, you'll be joining them in their docking parties.

 

[smackababy]

They see your homophobia, and laugh because you don't understand what the "tug" in "tugboat crew" really means.

Your loss, obviously.

But just man-up for once and in no time, you'll be joining them in their docking parties.

I could use a tug job right about now.

 

[alzan]

Don't misunderstand me, lables are never good when they're meant to demean and beat detractors into silence.

That's not what I was endorsing. I'm speaking of just overall criticism.

Understood.

The criticism needs to be changed then, on all sides. I'm not so idealistic to think that certain people will cease the verbal jibs and jibes when it's such a large part of our groupthink and groupspeak. Think of the potential benefits on both a societal and individual level.

One can criticize constructively if one is willing to risk going against what some in our socities think is right and proper. Humiliation and bullying are poor teachers

 

[alzan]

They see your homophobia, and laugh because you don't understand what the "tug" in "tugboat crew" really means.

Your loss, obviously.

But just man-up for once and in no time, you'll be joining them in their docking parties.

Any port in a storm?

 

[brycejones]

It might be 20 years, it might be 50 years, but other deviant sexual behavior is in the pipes to be legalized. Whether it is pedos being accepted as main stream, legalization of early teen sex, incest,,, whatever it may be.

Society has adopted the mindset that what happens in the privacy of your home is your business. If you want to have sex with your adult daughter, that is your business, right?

You're just an idiot. I'm not sure who makes the dumber arguments you or nehlam. You no good, dead beat, sack of shit who whines about having to bear financial responsibility for his kids and keeps lumping homosexuality with incest and pedophilia.