Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

[What]

Comment 12553 and 12551 posted by idiot who is stalking my ballsac. Take note, he will post again chasing after my balls!

[Anne Ominous]

revolving door wrote:

The bottom line is that a standard damily is mom, dad and kids. Divorce has forced many single parent families. 2 moms or 2 dads isn't normal.

A divorced family is not ideal but can still provide a mother/father role model. Even a single parent can see to that by making sure that the child has a well rounded upbringing.

[Anne Ominous]

Romneyblewme wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay people are "perfectly free", huh?
Are they perfectly free to marry one another?

Yes, as free as anyone else in a given jurisdiction.

[KiMare]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>
No two marriages are the same, just as no two people are exactly the same. Your belief ignores this reality. Yet you fail to show how all same sex marriages are different from all opposite sex marriages, other than the gender combinations.
While the law cannot make any two marriages equal to each other in all aspects, treating them equally under the law is a matter of basic fairness, fulfilling the spirit of our founding documents and constitution.

There are countless loving relationships. Most of which are not, nor demand to be called marriage.

To identify with marriage you have to go to the basic essence and qualify at that level.

Marriage is a cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior. Gay unions are the exact contradiction of that behavior.

Gay unions are better identified with handicapped rights.

:-)

[Romneyblewme]

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, as free as anyone else in a given jurisdiction.

And that "jurisdiction" will soon be the entire U.S

[Romneyblewme]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
There are countless loving relationships. Most of which are not, nor demand to be called marriage.
To identify with marriage you have to go to the basic essence and qualify at that level.
Marriage is a cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior. Gay unions are the exact contradiction of that behavior.
Gay unions are better identified with handicapped rights.
:-)

Play all of the word games you want, but marriage is not one thing more than a union of two people in love... whoever they might be.

[KiMare]

Romneyblewme wrote:

<quoted text>
Play all of the word games you want, but marriage is not one thing more than a union of two people in love... whoever they might be.

You mean like a mother and child?

Smirk.

[KiMare]

Romneyblewme wrote:

<quoted text>
Play all of the word games you want, but marriage is not one thing more than a union of two people in love... whoever they might be.

That is no word game. You know that.

You have no logical answer to reality.

:-)

[Not Yet Equal]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
There are countless loving relationships. Most of which are not, nor demand to be called marriage.
To identify with marriage you have to go to the basic essence and qualify at that level.
Marriage is a cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior. Gay unions are the exact contradiction of that behavior.
Gay unions are better identified with handicapped rights.
:-)

Your qualification is your personal requirement, not a requirement of law. Legally, marriage is a fundamental right. It cannot be denied without demonstrating a legitimate governmental justification. Procreation ability is not a legitimate governmental excuse sufficient for denial, as court cases have affirmed. Nor is being handicapped. Handicapped people can still get married, as long as they can demonstrate the ability of informed consent. Gay people can meet all of the legal requirements. Only the same sex union is prohibited.

While not every member of the species need multiply for the species to thrive, you continue to neglect the fact many gay people do choose to reproduce using all of the same methods utilized by many straight couples who need assistance. Yet denial of equal rights will not cause more straight people to procreate, nor equality cause less preocreation. Those who want to, will.

Harming gay families does nothing to help straight families. It only harms gay families without providing any legitimate governmental interest.

[Romneyblewme]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean like a mother and child?
Smirk.

Stop acting like a retard.

[Romneyblewme]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
That is no word game. You know that.
You have no logical answer to reality.
:-)

Oh, you want "reality"? Here's a little: Gay marriage is legal in New York State.

That real enough for ya?

[KiMare]

Not Yet Honest wrote:

<quoted text>
Your qualification is your personal requirement, not a requirement of law.

You lie. Mating behavior is the fundamental basis of life, hardly my 'personal requirement'. You know this, it is why you 'shifted' truth to me.

Law has no authority over mating behavior (Something about legislating morality...). What a silly assertion.

[KiMare]

Romneyblewme wrote:

<quoted text>
Stop acting like a retard.

Romneyblewme wrote:

Play all of the word games you want, but marriage is not one thing more than a union of two people in love...

*******whoever they might be.*********

Kimare'a wrote;

You mean like mother and child?

Fail to see anything retarded about that.

I gave a logical answer to your assertion, showing how retarded it was.

Kind of embarrassingly stupid of you.

Face it.

[KiMare]

Romneyblewme wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, you want "reality"? Here's a little: Gay marriage is legal in New York State.
That real enough for ya?

This is reality.

There is no such thing as gay 'marriage'. No law can change that.

Remember the story,'The Emperor Has No Clothes'? Replace that with 'The Gay Couple is Married'. Like the story, a child can point out the difference between redumbant couples and mom and dad.

:-)

[Not Yet Equal]

Your denial of reality only changes it in your own mind, not in the law others follow. Gay people are legally married today.

For most of us, the law determines what makes a legal marriage. Your refusal to recognize that doesn't change it. Reproduction is not and has never been a legal requirement.

And again, no two marriages are the same, and what they mean to each couple beyond the legal rights and protections, is different for each couple, and up to them to figure out and decide. Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.

[KiMare]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Your denial of reality only changes it in your own mind, not in the law others follow. Gay people are legally married today.
For most of us, the law determines what makes a legal marriage. Your refusal to recognize that doesn't change it. Reproduction is not and has never been a legal requirement.
And again, no two marriages are the same, and what they mean to each couple beyond the legal rights and protections, is different for each couple, and up to them to figure out and decide. Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.

Law has as much a chance of making children a 'requirement' as it does dictating to evolution. I can't believe you make such ridiculous statements.

Moreover, it is hardly my 'prejudice' that a duplicate gendered couple is vastly distinct on every discernible level possible.

Again, you can't prove that anything is identical except for the number and the narrow aspect of 'contract'. An incredibly diminished and narrow view of marriage simply so a imposter relationship can impose a fake relationship.

Like I said, even a child can see through this silliness.

[JoeSchmoe]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

Your denial of reality only changes it in your own mind, not in the law others follow. Gay people are legally married today.
For most of us, the law determines what makes a legal marriage. Your refusal to recognize that doesn't change it. Reproduction is not and has never been a legal requirement.
And again, no two marriages are the same, and what they mean to each couple beyond the legal rights and protections, is different for each couple, and up to them to figure out and decide. Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.

Well lets take your premis and look at the facts.. The Supreme Court has again stepped around addressing the issue and most likely will not at this time leaving the DOMA still the law of the Federal land. We can also look at now 33 states having laws or state amendments banning gay marriage, thus disposing the myth that the "majority of America is in favor of gay marriage" when we can clearly see it is not..as now the margin is 2/3's against it. We can review the fact that most states legislatively pass gay marriage and is not done by voter Referendum. Even Gov Cuomo understands that SSM would not pass in NY if the people got the chance to vote on it. It took 4 Senators to vote against what there Constituents wanted to get it passed, and thank goodness most have been removed from office. I give Maine and Maryland respect for passing SSM, and the reason I do is because the Voters said OK not some Senator. This is why the SCOTUS will not act. They will leave it up to the states. The only issue that will move this forward is California's Prop 8. This was a voter enacted Propostion and the will of the voters can not and should not be denied. Should the SCOTUS over rule that decision, prepare for a Constititional Convention as all issues concerning the Constitution will be up for discussion as it will become apparrent that "For the People, By the People" will mean nothing.

[Not Yet Equal]

JoeSchmoe wrote:

<quoted text>Well lets take your premis and look at the facts.. The Supreme Court has again stepped around addressing the issue and most likely will not at this time leaving the DOMA still the law of the Federal land. We can also look at now 33 states having laws or state amendments banning gay marriage, thus disposing the myth that the "majority of America is in favor of gay marriage" when we can clearly see it is not..as now the margin is 2/3's against it. We can review the fact that most states legislatively pass gay marriage and is not done by voter Referendum. Even Gov Cuomo understands that SSM would not pass in NY if the people got the chance to vote on it. It took 4 Senators to vote against what there Constituents wanted to get it passed, and thank goodness most have been removed from office. I give Maine and Maryland respect for passing SSM, and the reason I do is because the Voters said OK not some Senator. This is why the SCOTUS will not act. They will leave it up to the states. The only issue that will move this forward is California's Prop 8. This was a voter enacted Propostion and the will of the voters can not and should not be denied. Should the SCOTUS over rule that decision, prepare for a Constititional Convention as all issues concerning the Constitution will be up for discussion as it will become apparrent that "For the People, By the People" will mean nothing.

You did not address my assertions, including the fact that many gay people today are legally married, here and in other countries.

But I'll address yours:

Guessing about why and what the Supreme court may do is just that; guessing. Only time will tell, and even then, they may get it wrong as they have in the past when they excused discrimination under the law rather than requiring equal treatment as required by the constitution and enshrined in the founding documents.

A majority of states does not equal a majority of the population. While all recent reliable polls that show a majority of Americans support marriage equality, that does not mean a majority of states do. The states that prohibit equality include vast rural areas with low populations. States that have accepted marriage equality tend to be high in population.

The fact a majority of states have passed laws that discriminate and enshrine prejudice, does not make it right or morally or legally valid. Fundamental rights were never intended to depend on any vote, and that is why we have a constitution including a bill of rights, separation of powers, and why we were formed as a representative democracy, not a direct one. The founders knew majorities would deny to minorities the rights they reserve for themselves if given the opportunity. Equal rights should never depend on popular opinion.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (SCOTUS)

[Not Yet Equal]

Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop. 8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”

James Madison wrote:“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

John Adams, the second U.S. president, bluntly stated that "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

Treating others as you would yourself under the law, is a requirement of our constitution.

[Not Yet Equal]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Law has as much a chance of making children a 'requirement' as it does dictating to evolution. I can't believe you make such ridiculous statements.
Moreover, it is hardly my 'prejudice' that a duplicate gendered couple is vastly distinct on every discernible level possible.
Again, you can't prove that anything is identical except for the number and the narrow aspect of 'contract'. An incredibly diminished and narrow view of marriage simply so a imposter relationship can impose a fake relationship.
Like I said, even a child can see through this silliness.

Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.