iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

ol cranky's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
Hobby Lobby Boycotts Jewish Hanukkah And Passover (UPDATE)

Hobby Lobby Boycotts Jewish Hanukkah And Passover (UPDATE)

Commented Oct 3, 2013 at 11:34:47 in Religion

“no, pretty sure he was born, lived and died a Jew. He practiced Judaism as evidenced by that bible you ignorant "Christian Identity" folks like to quote and misinterpret”
'Million Muslim March' Planned On 9/11 Anniversary Prompts Conservative Freakout

'Million Muslim March' Planned On 9/11 Anniversary Prompts Conservative Freakout

Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 06:46:24 in Politics

“I didn't see any public announcement confirming you did all those things above therefor it must not have happened which means Muslims have the right to condemn you for being a hypocrite. Just because you didn't see anyone you know to be a Muslim protesting against radical Islamacists, helping as first responders or donating to funds for 9/11 victims doesn't mean they didn't do those things.

Religious extremism does some pretty heinous stuff regardless of which Abrahamic religion (that'd be Jews, Christians and Muslims alike) is represented. Non-radical Muslims are no more tolerant of "such horrific crimes against humanity and to their submissiveness to the monsters within their own religion" than Christians and Jews are. But, of course, that truth is inconvenient to you”

autocos on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:17:38

“Nice try. I don't want individuals, one at a time, which is what you're suggesting. I want, I expect, I demand, a very large nameless group walking down the center of any main street holding signs and chanting "we demand JUSTICE for America" while holding AMERICAN flags. If they can do it for themselves, they can certainly do it for the country. And when horrific crimes happen in this country, we protest and, in some cases, we actually FIGHT BACK. It's all over the news. I never once implied that Muslims were the only ones with monsters. I flat out stated that they were the only ones who continue to KEEP SILENT. Spin it all you like. Oh and in case you haven't read the other comments.......I don't buy the "absent media" excuse. The media is covering the MMM and it isn't even happening yet.....so that excuse won't fly.”
Richard Blumenthal Blasts NRA Over Newtown Robocall Campaign

Richard Blumenthal Blasts NRA Over Newtown Robocall Campaign

Commented Mar 25, 2013 at 17:35:58 in Politics

“a politician upset that his constituents are complaining about these robocalls”

auntmeme on Mar 25, 2013 at 18:03:00

“I LOVE YOUR MICRO BIO”
John Eastman, National Organization For Marriage Leader, Calls Adoption 'Second-Best Option'

John Eastman, National Organization For Marriage Leader, Calls Adoption 'Second-Best Option'

Commented Mar 14, 2013 at 14:46:50 in Gay Voices

“actually, the Catholic church has refused the rite of marriage to heterosexual couples when they know/suspect the couple can not procreate "naturally" this is usually done in countries in which the church pretty much controls the people and government (like Latin America). There was a case somewhere in South America 5-10 years ago in which a paraplegic man was denied the right to marry a woman who was a widowed single mother and he was unable to father children due to his impotence. It got a lot of attention because there was a documentary about it”

Mike Parent on Mar 14, 2013 at 18:41:39

“Religion, uggggh!”
'Parenthood': Craig T. Nelson Blasts NBC's Treatment Of The Show

'Parenthood': Craig T. Nelson Blasts NBC's Treatment Of The Show

Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 13:07:25 in TV

“What does he mean they don't promote the show. When the show is airing, I see loads of ads for it”
Ted Cruz: Defund Obamacare Or Risk Government Shutdown

Ted Cruz: Defund Obamacare Or Risk Government Shutdown

Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 13:00:09 in Politics

“I think the FIRST thing that should be defunded is the healthcare and every other benefit senators/congressmen (including per diems they may receive) get as part of their employment and retirement packages. They should also go without any pay during this period”

ljb860ljb on Mar 13, 2013 at 13:12:02

“I'd prefer that they have to punch a physical clock. We the people get to (2) see the actual amount of time they actually spend on the peoples work, (b) we see the actual time they start and end their workday, (c) we pay them per actual hour worked, (d) we provide all benefits such as holidays, vacation, retirement, health care on actual hours worked. And if it turns out to be part time work then as most citizens no benefits period....”
Taylor Swift Hits Back At Tina Fey, Amy Poehler For Golden Globes Joke, Poehler & Fey Respond (UPDATE)

Taylor Swift Hits Back At Tina Fey, Amy Poehler For Golden Globes Joke, Poehler & Fey Respond (UPDATE)

Commented Mar 6, 2013 at 11:09:58 in Comedy

“last I checked, Swift is the one who's pretty flighty and may not be marriage material. Poehler, while now undergoing a divorce, was married for some time and I'm pretty sure that Tina Fey's husband would disagree that she's not marriage material either.”
Michigan Senate Abortion Coverage Ending, No Exception For Rape Or Incest

Michigan Senate Abortion Coverage Ending, No Exception For Rape Or Incest

Commented Feb 15, 2013 at 18:47:08 in Detroit

“ED is only an issue if you want to have sex, it doesn't interfere with any other function so it actually falls under the same degree of necessary treatment as an abortion would

BTW vasectomies covered, why is that the case?”

Tom Berndt on Feb 15, 2013 at 20:46:00

“Personally, I don't think vasectomies or ED treatment should be covered, but, what can u do?”
Michigan Senate Abortion Coverage Ending, No Exception For Rape Or Incest

Michigan Senate Abortion Coverage Ending, No Exception For Rape Or Incest

Commented Feb 15, 2013 at 18:43:37 in Detroit

“yes, the government should stay out of it and that staying out of it should include not making it impossible to obtain one by creating legislation targeted specifically at women's health clinics and not being able to prevent insurance from covering it.”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 10, 2013 at 07:26:35 in Gay Voices

“"Opposite-sex couples procreate, therefore, there is a legitimate and important governmental interest as it concerns their sexual relationships because procreation affects us all"
this would only matter if procreation was strictly tied to marriage and a requirement of marriage.  As we all know, it is not. Until you ensure the state acts like the Catholic church in the parts of the world it controls through religious intimidation and refuse to allow any/all couples who are incapable of procreating together (and doing so naturally, without aid of ART) from getting married, ban contraception other than NFP, require any and all unmarried couples who procreate to get married (which, BTW, would also mandate polygamy since children have been known to be conceived by adulterous liaisons) and annul marriages due to lack of procreation, the ability to procreate together is a straw man argument.  As a matter of fact, the argument that banning SSM somehow protects the family or helps the state promote families in any way is a a categorical lie.  You keep dragging up the same tired argument.  If you don't like the idea of gays getting married, that's fine but neither you nor the state has a legitimate and compelling reason to ban it.  I think we've beaten this horse to death”

Leboazz on Feb 10, 2013 at 10:22:33

“"this would only matter if procreation was strictly tied to marriage and a requirement of marriage."

No! That is absolutely false. Procreation doesn't need to be "strictly tied to marriage and a requirement of marriage" for it to be a legitimate governmental interest. It just needs to happen with enough frequency that it affects society. And procreation certainly does happen very frequently and certainly does affect society, being one of the three principle preoccupations of mankind along with food and territory, all three of which have been institutionalized in the form of the economy, of nations and government, and of marriage. These are the three pillars of a civilization.

You just wasted your time typing out the rest of your post.

The three arguments in favor of same-sex marriage boil down to, "Because it would be nice"; "Why not, what's the harm?"; and "Same-sex couples should be able to marry because opposite-sex couples get to marry"; that is, it is only necessary to be a couple in order to marry. These are the three essential arguments in favor of same-sex marriage once all the verbiage, sophistry and propaganda have been stripped away. And each one is particularly weak, without any strong, rational basis or merit.

Come up with a better argument than these and I will change my position. Until then, I need a reason to change my mind, not no reason at all. It has to be better than just "Why not?"”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 9, 2013 at 13:39:59 in Gay Voices

“back in the day, blacks weren't considered equally human to whites so your goldfish beastiality argument comes into play.  If you weren't so dead set on imposing your personal views on everyone else you would realize that the decision in the Loving case clearly indicates that for the state to deny rights to some based on "classifications", the state must be able to make a clear, cogent, compelling and legitimate argument as to why the state must intercede and institute a ban (this, my friend, is where the reference to the 9th amendment comes from).  Additionally, due to the 1st amendment, that compelling case can not be based on religious arguments since these are matters of civil law, not church law.”

llisa on Feb 11, 2013 at 01:45:51

“Leboazz is a homophobic nonsense talker. He seems to love to argue but has no argument. I have given up responding to him.

I fanned you for trying, though.”

Leboazz on Feb 9, 2013 at 19:23:32

“Opposite-sex couples procreate, therefore, there is a legitimate and important governmental interest as it concerns their sexual relationships because procreation affects us all. There is no governmental interest as it concerns the sexual relationships of same-sex couples, who can be more accurately compared to friendships and not opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage advocates can only base a comparison between the two based on the idea that sexual relations are assumed to take place, or that each relationship might involve emotions. But none of these are pertinent. It is only the effects and consequences that these relationships produce on society that are pertinent to governance. And through procreation, opposite-sex couples produce social and material effects that is impossible for same-sex couples to duplicate.

Marriage for oposite-sex couples is rooted in biology and rationality. There is no rational basis for same-sex marriage either in biology or logic or law. When all the verbiage, sophistry and propaganda are stripped away, the basic argument for same-sex marriage boils down to: "Because it would be nice, so why not?" Which is to say, these are about the weakest arguments that anyone can make.”

Leboazz on Feb 9, 2013 at 19:19:08

“Oh! So we're back to the black/gay false equivalency. And tell me whose views I am supposed to impose on others if not my own! Your claim is ridiculous!

In the Loving case, what the state of Virginia was not able to do was to make a clear, cogent, compelling and legitimate argument as to why there even were racial classifications in the first place. Believe me, if they had successfully done so, we would have anti-miscegenation laws today.

This is far different from same-sex marriage today where there is an excellent case to be made for the gender classifications. In no particular order, marriage for opposite-sex couples is a fundamental right that is “objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ …” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997

For same-sex marriage, there is no “objectively, deeply rooted" tradition in this Nation’s history and tradition, nor in the traditions and history of any other nation on earth.

continued”
Receipt Includes Discount For 'Well Behaved Kids' And The Internet Cheers (PHOTO)

Receipt Includes Discount For 'Well Behaved Kids' And The Internet Cheers (PHOTO)

Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 13:45:38 in Parents

“heck, for al we know, they may feed their family gratis on a regular basis by letting their kids act out”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 18:10:49 in Gay Voices

“funny, even the SCOTUS decision of Loving vs Virginia made reference to some of the statements in the 9th amendment. I guess you and people who think those of whom you disapprove are the ONLY ones who understand anything (and we're back to your childish take that started this discussion). FWIW, the Loving decision also references the need for the state to provide a legitimate & compelling reason to deny rights.”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 17:17:07 in Gay Voices

“you may want to read the 9th amendment”

Leboazz on May 14, 2013 at 20:24:03

“'I have read the 9th Amendment. You still just made that up. We have already established that you have an understanding problem. You don’t understand the 9th Amendment either.”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 18:06:34

“I have read the 9th Amendment. You still just made that up. We have already established that you have an understanding problem. You don’t understand the 9th Amendment either.”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 17:14:11 in Gay Voices

“your example is illogical, a child getting a treat for doing something good is not the same as the expectation of equal rights.  In this case, the 14th amendment grants equal rights and protections under the law so the argument that gays should be permitted to marry because straight people can do it is a compelling and legitimate reason for the state to permit it.  You, again, go back to procreation but marriage was not invented for procreation (people were procreating outside of marriage long before we had the social construct of marriage and even during "traditional marriage" through out time, procreation was occurring outside of marriage as well, often with married men fathering illegitimate children.  As procreation is neither a requirement of marriage and marriage is not a requirement of procreation, the references to the fact that only straight couples can procreate together is not applicable (it's even less applicable since a very large number of straight couples are incapable of reproducing together without the aid of medical intervention)”

Leboazz on May 14, 2013 at 20:24:44

“In order to be entitled to equal rights, one has to be equal. Same-sex relationships are NOT equal to opposite-sex relationships in the way that matters most: The effect on society!
By the way, my example was an analogy, and it is realistic, not illogical. It is precisely what gay marriage advocates are arguing, because they ignore the differences between their relationships and those of opposite-sex couples and focus only on the similarities. But, it is the differences that make the…… difference! Not the similarities!
As to your other comment about "people were procreating outside of marriage long before we had the social construct of marriage…”: Marriage was a way of civilizing procreation in order to avoid the very problems you invoke.
And as love is neither a requirement of marriage and marriage is not a requirement of love, the argument of the equality of gay love to straight love that gay marriage advocates advance is not applicable and is completely undermined.
I have made the case for procreation; you have made no case at all. I guess I win by default.”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 17:53:27

“In order to be entitled to equal rights, one has to be equal. Same-sex relationships are NOT equal to opposite-sex relationships in the way that matters most: The effect on society!

By the way, my example was an analogy, and it is realistic, not illogical. It is precisely what gay marriage advocates are arguing, because they ignore the differences between their relationships and those of opposite-sex couples and focus only on the similarities. But, it is the differences that make the…… difference! Not the similarities!

As to your other comment about "people were procreating outside of marriage long before we had the social construct of marriage…”: Marriage was a way of civilizing procreation in order to avoid the very problems you invoke.

And as love is neither a requirement of marriage and marriage is not a requirement of love, the argument of the equality of gay love to straight love that gay marriage advocates advance is not applicable and is completely undermined.

I have made the case for procreation; you have made no case at all. I guess I win by default.”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 09:29:32 in Gay Voices

“you've refuted none of my arguments, just casually disregarded and willfully misconstrued them.
No cognitive dissonance here.  In providing a list of some of the compelling and legitimate reasons for the state to exclude polygamous marriage (or even incestuous ones, for that matter), I did not undermine the statements that marriage is not a precondition for procreation or that procreation not is a requirement of marriage.”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 15:24:39

“You undermined the favorite argument of gay marriage advocates that gay love is equal to straight love, which is why gays should also have the right to marry, seeing as love is not a requirement of marriage and marriage is not a requirement for love any more than you claim that procreation is.

You know how old people are often times hard of hearing? Well, you are hard of understanding. The problem we are having in our discussion is that your reading skills are awful. Maybe being old and cranky have something to do with that.”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 15:19:33

“You are just being old and cranky now. Here! Let me refresh your obviously failing memory:

1) "potential for public health issues ensuing from limiting the gene pool within the population”

Refuted: Either marriage is about procreation or it isn’t. So your argument about the "potential for public health issues ensuing from limiting the gene pool within the population” just won’t fly unless you are agreeing that marriage is about procreation. And if it is about procreation, then it just doesn’t concern same-sex couples. Furthermore, there already exists a situation that is similar to polygamy where one man may have a number of children from different wives (baby mamas) and it seems that the law is indifferent to this.

2) "significant increase in the complexity and cost of managing claims/services based on marital rights, etc. (competing and equal claims creates a legal quagmire, polygamy doesn't equal polyamory so are all spouses in a marriage married to each other/dissolution of community property, etc.)”

Refuted: In countries where polygamy is currently practiced, these seemed to have managed the "complexity and cost of managing claims/services based on marital rights, etc.” without too much problem. So, it seems you are merely exaggerating here. None of the complexities are insurmountable, if indeed, there are any, because US law has managed something similar with the current situation of serial monogamy, which is a form of polygamy, where there are off-spring from different wives and husbands for many individuals now.”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 09:24:53 in Gay Voices

“try the 9th &14th amendments
the purpose of banning SSM, as I noted above, is expressly to prevent gay couples from accessing rights that straight couples can obtain through a valid marriage license.  You would essentially be requiring a gay person to act/pretend to be straight to get married thus granting those rights not to their chosen partner but to a partner the state deems appropriate solely based on a religious worldview.  Based on that, the government should be permitted to restrict the issuance of marriage license to Christians because Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc aren't prevented from marrying  they're only being prevented from marrying anyone who isn't Christians while Christians can marry one another as they choose.  This grants special rights to Christians and people willing to put on a Christian front while the first amendment allows them not to be forced to actually be Christian.  
In order to limit rights, the state must have a compelling and legitimate, non-religious, basis to do so.  Neither you, nor the state have made such a case.”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 16:02:50

“And that last part: "In order to limit rights, the state must have a compelling and legitimate, non-religious, basis to do so. Neither you, nor the state have made such a case.”

You just made that up. There is nothing of the sort like you claim!”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 15:58:56

“And from your example, Christians would be burdened just as much because they could not marry anyone who is non-Christian, either. You are assuming that all Christians will only want to marry other Christians. This is patently false. Your example has precedent in Loving v. Virginia, where race was the issue and not religion. It was ruled unconstitutional because the racial criterium interfered with the gender criterium, which is the only important thing to consider. Marriage is about men and women mating. It concerns no other issues, either race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation.”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 15:57:59

“You have not provided a reason why same-sex couples should be granted the right to marry that is INDEPENDENT of the argument that opposite-sex couples get to do it. We know why opposite-sex couples have that right; there is the biological fact that together, they produce children. That fact has a number of physical and social consequences, and marriage is the legal structure that has been developed to manage these. This has developed throughout history and has given rise to traditions and customs.

But, what reason is there for same-sex marriage that is INDEPENDENT of the above reason?

It’s like little Johnny gets ice cream because he did a particularly good thing. But little Joey is demanding ice cream, also, based ONLY on the fact that little Johnny got some. What reason is there independent of the fact that little Johnny got ice cream is there to reward little Joey?

God! I hope that gets through to you! But, from seeing the screwy logic that you employ, I have my doubts.”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 1, 2013 at 16:29:06 in Gay Voices

“I'm not asking to have it both ways, marriage is NOT about procreation.  Procreation is not a requirement of marriage and marriage is not a requirement for procreation.  As I noted above, the government has compelling, legitimate, non-religious reasons to ban polygamy”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 00:36:32

“If you are not asking to have it both ways, then you have serious cognitive dissonance. You cannot cite the "potential for public health issues ensuing from limiting the gene pool within the population” and not have that be about procreation.

If marriage is not about procreation, then it is also not about love or sentiment. Love is not a requirement of marriage and marriage is not a requirement for love, which completely undermines the argument of gay marriage advocates, who argue that gay love is equal to straight love, and therefore, the basis for granting them the same right to marry as straights.

You have marvelously argued for no marriage at all!

I have refuted all your arguments that "the government has compelling, legitimate, non-religious reasons to ban polygamy”. Or, didn’t you read or understand that part?”
Pastor Apologizes For Writing 'I Give God 10%' On Receipt (PHOTO)

Pastor Apologizes For Writing 'I Give God 10%' On Receipt (PHOTO)

Commented Feb 1, 2013 at 16:26:09 in Religion

“he states her note was a lapse in judgement that was blown out of proportion and yet SHE DEMANDED THE RESTAURANT FIRE THE WAITRESS?”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Feb 1, 2013 at 16:23:07 in Gay Voices

“the thing that is so difficult to understand is why you and people like you demand the government continue a requirement of opposite sexes when there is no compelling and legitimate reason for the government to ban it thereby denying access to rights solely based on sexual orientation.  Even the Catholic church has acknowledged the denial of equal rights to gay couples is the premise of their insistance the government ban SSM (I noted that early on in this discussion).”

Leboazz on Feb 2, 2013 at 00:11:00

“Really! Your argument boils down to “Why not?” If all laws were made in terms of "no compelling and legitimate reason”, that would permit just about anything. Laws need a reason to come into being, not no reason at all, which is what you are proposing.

The requirement of opposite sexes preserves the culture and traditions of Western civilization in addition to the fact that opposite-sex couples make babies. You know how progressives are always going on about diversity, multiculturalism and respecting the traditions and ways of foreign peoples and not imposing our ways on them? Well, that same idea applies to our own civilization as well. Gay marriage is as foreign to our ways as the traditions and cultures of Islam or Hinduism or any other foreign lands, and progressives should respect our ways as well.

So, what compelling and legitimate reason is there for the government to grant marriage to same-sex couples that is INDEPENDENT of the argument that opposite-sex couples get to do it?”

Leboazz on Feb 1, 2013 at 20:51:44

“It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Even if same-sex couples were straight, they still should not be allowed to marry. That is because there is just no good reason to allow them to marry. Please tell me what good, rational reason is there to allow same-sex couples, gay or straight, to marry that is INDEPENDENT of the argument that opposite-sex couples get to do it.”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 17:18:19 in Gay Voices

“actually, the state can make a legitimate and non-religious argument against allowing polygamy including, but not limited to: potential for public health issues ensuing from limiting the gene pool within the population, significant increase in the complexity and cost of managing claims/services based on marital rights, etc. (competing and equal claims creates a legal quagmire, polygamy doesn't equal polyamory so are all spouses in a marriage married to each other/dissolution of community property, etc.)
You still don't provide evidence of a legitimate reason to ban couples of the same gender to get married. ”

Leboazz on Feb 1, 2013 at 16:08:50

“The "legitimate reason to ban couples of the same gender to get married” is that they are not entitled to marriage because they do not satisfy the requirement of opposite-sexes. That shouldn’t be too hard to understand, should it?”

Leboazz on Feb 1, 2013 at 16:03:50

“Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either marriage is about procreation or it isn’t. So your argument about the "potential for public health issues ensuing from limiting the gene pool within the population” just won’t fly unless you are agreeing that marriage is about procreation. And if it is about procreation, then it just doesn’t concern same-sex couples. Furthermore, there already exists a situation that is similar to polygamy where one man may have a number of children from different wives (baby mamas) and it seems that the law is indifferent to this.

In countries where polygamy is currently practiced, these seemed to have managed the "complexity and cost of managing claims/services based on marital rights, etc.” without too much problem. So, it seems you are merely exaggerating here. None of the complexities are insurmountable, if indeed, there are any, because US law has managed something similar with the current situation of serial monogamy, which is a form of polygamy, where there are off-spring from different wives and husbands for many individuals now.

So, are polygamy and polyamory going to see their day, if same-sex couples should be granted a privilege?”
Kirill Bartashevitch Allegedly Points AK-47 Rifle At Daughter Over Grades

Kirill Bartashevitch Allegedly Points AK-47 Rifle At Daughter Over Grades

Commented Jan 27, 2013 at 07:51:48 in Crime

“what, a simple handgun wouldn't have done the trick? /sarc

seriously, this is an example of a good, pro-NRA "law abiding" gun purchaser that the NRA thinks absolutely needs to be able to purchase any gun he damn well pleases smdh”
Dave Camp Bank Tax Bill Would Punish Obama-Friendly CEOs

Dave Camp Bank Tax Bill Would Punish Obama-Friendly CEOs

Commented Jan 25, 2013 at 08:17:55 in Politics

“not just manufacturing jobs, but most job types (a huge # of white collar jobs have also been offshored too).”
Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Busy Phillips Talks Gay Marriage, Michelle Williams Lesbian Rumors And Chick-Fil-A In The Advocate

Commented Jan 25, 2013 at 08:03:24 in Gay Voices

“the current conditions are what has them being treated differently, they are specifically prevented from marrying their chosen mate solely due to the fact they're gay.  The state only denies two straight people (of the legal age of consent or for whom a legal custodian grants permission) if a partner is already married to another or if the known biological relationship between the couple close (some states allow cousins, most do not).  The state can make compelling, objective, non-religious arguments against all other marriages it denies.  It can not do the same against SSM.”

Leboazz on Jan 30, 2013 at 20:35:29

“No, they are specifically prevented from marrying their chosen mate solely due to the fact the chosen mate is the same sex. But all same-sex couples would be treated equally, even same-sex couples who are not gay. So, sexual orientation has nothing to do with this. It is all about gender. The state, also, cannot make compelling, objective, non-religious arguments against someone marrying two or more spouses. I can think of none. Can you? So, would you think polygamy is a good idea?”
next
1 - 25