Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-19-2013, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,102,216 times
Reputation: 7875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
A man and woman of different races have complimentary sex organs and can produce offspring making the sex that takes place between a man and a woman of different races within nature's plan.

In decades past, some people were of the opinion that sexual unions between men and women of different races was not in keeping with nature's design.

That healthy and happy children are produced by interracial unions proves that the opinion expressed by those who believed interracial unions were outside of nature's design was in error.

Perhaps some day two men or two women will produce a child together and I'll be proven wrong.

Until then, homosexuality is an unnatural and unproductive behavior that fails to balance the risk of sexually transmitted disease with the advancement of the species.

Playing house with real kids doesn't change the unnatural nature of homosexuality.
There is no law that states people can only get married to produce children so your entire statement against same sex marriage is false.

 
Old 10-19-2013, 03:24 PM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,488,745 times
Reputation: 4621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post
Read more: Cory Booker Wants To Officiate Gay Marriages in Newark, New Jersey | TIME.com


Way to go, Senator Booker and the state of New Jersey (as well as Governor Christie for not trying to stop fairness and equality)!

Another state for marriage equality - another public official openly supporting it!
Booker has openly supported gay marriage for a long time. Officiating is a nice gesture, but hardly a head-exploder.
 
Old 10-19-2013, 03:40 PM
 
Location: The Cascade Foothills
10,942 posts, read 10,234,335 times
Reputation: 6476
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
There is no law that states people can only get married to produce children so your entire statement against same sex marriage is false.
See, this is something that has never been explained to me to my satisfaction by the gay haters.

What about all the heterosexual couples who can't, or who choose to not, have children? Are their marriages any less valid than couples who reproduce?

For instance, I am a post-menopausal, happily single woman. Now, although hell would have to freeze over before I would ever consider marriage again, I realize there are plenty of other single "seniors" who feel otherwise and who would love to marry the person they love. Should they be denied that right because they are past the age of reproduction?

I have a friend who had to have a hysterectomy at a young age. Should she be told she can't marry because she can't reproduce?

Anyway, I am thrilled that Senator-elect Booker refused, as mayor of Newark, to perform marriage ceremonies until gays had the same right to marry, and that now, because of the recent ruling by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, he will officiate at some weddings - both straight and same sex - in his remaining days as mayor.

Symbolic? Sure. But I think it's indicative of the tone of the country and the direction in which we are heading.

And, as Martha Stewart might say, "that is a very good thing."

Last edited by Cinebar; 10-19-2013 at 03:50 PM..
 
Old 10-19-2013, 03:41 PM
 
Location: The Cascade Foothills
10,942 posts, read 10,234,335 times
Reputation: 6476
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
Booker has openly supported gay marriage for a long time. Officiating is a nice gesture, but hardly a head-exploder.
No....no big shocker.

Just another indication of the positive direction this country is headed in.
 
Old 10-19-2013, 03:49 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,083,971 times
Reputation: 11095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post

Read more: Cory Booker Wants To Officiate Gay Marriages in Newark, New Jersey | TIME.com


Way to go, Senator Booker and the state of New Jersey (as well as Governor Christie for not trying to stop fairness and equality)!

Another state for marriage equality - another public official openly supporting it!
Yes...kudos to Booker. Christie is actually relieved that it is no longer an issue he will have to debate in 2016 which would make him appear too far right.
 
Old 10-19-2013, 03:50 PM
 
1,160 posts, read 1,428,087 times
Reputation: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post
No....no big shocker.

Just another indication of the positive direction this country is headed in.
Up is down, cold is hot, wrong is right. Straight to hell is a positive direction.
 
Old 10-19-2013, 04:06 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,083,971 times
Reputation: 11095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
Up is down, cold is hot, wrong is right. Straight to hell is a positive direction.
Yes, the all merciful sky daddy is going to send his creations downwards where a guy with a pitchfork is going to fan those flames of hatred for all eternity upon these gay wretched souls, due to their love for another human being.

Sounds soooooooooooo reasonable.
 
Old 10-19-2013, 04:13 PM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,505,286 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
what do i care? the reality is that it is being done at the STATE level where it belongs, and not at the federal level. the feds should have NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
It becomes a federal issue once a same-sex couple decides to get married in one state, then relocate to another state. The U.S. constitution clearly grants the federal government jurisdiction to regulate in the "Interstate Commerce" clause, further reinforced by the "Necessary and Proper" clause.

Marriage, from a legal perspective, has nothing to do with religion. Just ask anyone who's ever been through a divorce what was the focus of the process: disposition of common property, agreements for dependents in their care, any monetary support, and future disposition of benefits. Creating a system where there are 51 distinct standards of marriage quickly becomes a federal issue, as well as an international issue when couples marry in another country.
 
Old 10-19-2013, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Tulsa, OK
2,572 posts, read 4,241,275 times
Reputation: 2427
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
You are very correct.

States can marry whomever they like.

This is New Jersey's problem.


FTR, homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying anywhere in the United States.

Most states prohibit marriage between members of the same sex, but the law applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Yes gays can marry anywhere in the USA, Larry Craig, Lonnie Latham, Ted Haggard and Marcus Bachmann are great examples of gay men who married.
 
Old 10-19-2013, 04:22 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,750,280 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Federal government doesnt marry people.
true, the feds dont marry people, which is why they need to keep their bloody noses OUT of the issue, except at the supreme court level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4 View Post
It becomes a federal issue once a same-sex couple decides to get married in one state, then relocate to another state. The U.S. constitution clearly grants the federal government jurisdiction to regulate in the "Interstate Commerce" clause, further reinforced by the "Necessary and Proper" clause.

Marriage, from a legal perspective, has nothing to do with religion. Just ask anyone who's ever been through a divorce what was the focus of the process: disposition of common property, agreements for dependents in their care, any monetary support, and future disposition of benefits. Creating a system where there are 51 distinct standards of marriage quickly becomes a federal issue, as well as an international issue when couples marry in another country.
trying to use the commerce clause regarding marriage is rubbish, as marriage is NOT interstate commerce. there is a reason the feds were not given the power of marriage, and it should stay that way.

Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-19-2013 at 05:07 PM.. Reason: deleted quoted post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top