Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

Jun 11, 2011 Full story: Contra Costa Times 12,365

In this Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2009 file picture, New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx, right, speaks during a debate over same-sex marriage in the New York state Senate at the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. Diaz complained in May 2011 that he's received death threats because he opposes legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Full Story
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13156 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I
To prevent same sex couples from marrying, you would need to prove that it's bad for them, bad for their children<snip>

Can you do it?
I don't have to do it, it's already been done. There's a mountain of evidence supporting my position.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13157 Mar 3, 2013
"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.”(Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies in their prop.8 filing)
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13158 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Finding a "gay gene" certainly isn't necessary for equal protectio9n under the law.
Straw man. The inability to find a genetic link to homosexuality proves that it isn't genetic. IOW, no one is "born homosexual".
Whether being gay is totally or partially genetic, is caused by chemical reactions in the womb, or is a person choice, makes no difference under the law.
Homosexuals use their helplessness to resist as one of their main talking points in trying to justify their sick perversion as "being normal".

[QUOTE[To ban people of the same gender from legally marrying, you must prove a valid state interest in enacting laws to prevent such marriages.[/QUOTE]

Bass-ackwards. To re-define Traditional Marriage you must prove a valid state interest in enacting laws to permit homosexual marriages. There is none.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13159 Mar 3, 2013
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill v OPM)
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13160 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, studies have shown that - at least in gay men - there is likely a genetic component.
If homosexuality were genetic, then identical twins would always have the same orientation. They do not. Ergo, it is not genetic.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13161 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
What we don't have is a state interest in creating and supporting laws that ban same sex marriage.
Gay folks don't have to PROVE were are entitled to equal protection under the law-that's already guaranteed.
People who wish to create laws to deny such protection are the ones who must provide the burden of proof in a state interest to do so.
So, prove your case.
Prove that banning gay folks legally marrying will help them, provide more stability and security for their children, and provide more security for the elderly.
Prove that sending a message of second class citizenship to gay youth is healthy.
Prove that gay folks marrying will harm straight folks and their marriages, and that marriage harms society.
Ca you rationally and logically support your case?
Irrelevant homobabble. The burden of proof is not on us. We are not the ones seeking change.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13162 Mar 3, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
Attempts to ridicule, dehumanize, and demonize, remain the best tools for those who wish to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.
The desire to dehumanize gay people by labeling them "genetic defects" fails to consider the fact we don't deny fundamental rights based on genetic defects. We actually protect people based on genetic defects because we know there are folks who would use that excuse to deny equal rights to others.
Are you tired of being owned YET?
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13163 Mar 3, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right
The court has done anything remotely like that as I have proven multiple times.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13164 Mar 3, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill v OPM)
blah blah blah more homobabble

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13165 Mar 3, 2013
Again, we see attempts to ridicule, dehumanize, and demonize, remain the best tools for those who wish to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution".(Golinski)

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#13166 Mar 3, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexuality were genetic, then identical twins would always have the same orientation. They do not. Ergo, it is not genetic.
That's odd, because I now several sets of gay twins and where one is gay, both are.

Taking a wife to please your church or family doesn't necessarily make one str8.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13167 Mar 3, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but procreation is not necessary for marriage, so the libtards constantly bleat. Therefore there is no compelling reason to prevent me from marrying my parent? Is that discrimination?
You're grasping, pull your head out...Yes, there is a compelling reason, medical..I never mentioned procreation, you did. The point is mute whether you like it or not...Not everything is black and white. There are more reasons to enter a contract of marriage than just procreation, to ignore those is belligerent and idiotic.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13168 Mar 3, 2013
A simplistic view of genetics leads some to look for a single gene that functions as an either/or trigger, or "on/off" switch. This view fails to consider the interplay of various genes, hormones, and bio-chemicals. While we haven't yet found a heterosexual gene, most heterosexuals would agree their sexual orientation is innate.

The elevated rate of sexual orientation sameness in genetic twins, indicates there is a genetic influence, though not one "on/off" gene. Investigation into hormonal and bio-chemical influences continues, and influences have been indicated.

But the problem with the biological argument for sexual orientation is, no matter which theory you accept, someone will want to use it as an excuse to deny equal treatment, as we have seen on this thread. If it is genetic, they will argue it is a defect, ignoring that we don't deny equal rights based on genetic defects or variations.

And if using the argument there is no genetic influence, the excuse then becomes sexual orientation is a choice and gay people could choose to be straight, and therefore choice should not be protected, ignoring the fact we protect equal rights based on choice of religious beliefs or no belief.

So whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, it fails as an excuse to deny equal treatment under the law.

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:...DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13169 Mar 3, 2013
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13170 Mar 3, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Thanks for posting...But the more I read the bigotry on here the more evident it becomes. These people don't care about SSM, gays or acceptance. What they really care about is, if SSM becomes the law of the land, they aren't a 'special' class anymore. Tax breaks, Spousal Social Security..etc..everyone gets the same thing. What's really funny is me wanting the same thing, is being called 'special rights'

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13171 Mar 3, 2013
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Smile.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13172 Mar 3, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for posting...But the more I read the bigotry on here the more evident it becomes. These people don't care about SSM, gays or acceptance. What they really care about is, if SSM becomes the law of the land, they aren't a 'special' class anymore. Tax breaks, Spousal Social Security..etc..everyone gets the same thing. What's really funny is me wanting the same thing, is being called 'special rights'
Yes, calling equal rights "special rights" is one of the pejorative terms used to excuse discrimination. Pejorative terminology is one the best tools they have because it relies on emotion rather than reason. And prejudice relies on emotion, not reason. It is destroyed by reason.

Maintaining prejudice also relies on external institutional support. It appears reasonable if expressed in the law. If you remove prejudice from the law, and there is no longer any official justification for it, all they are left with is a tradition of harming others, and a few mistranslated, misinterpreted ancient religious verses taken out of context and contradicted by other, more important verses.

So the motives and excuses for prejudice are many and varied, but the results remain the same. Prejudice and discrimination cause needless suffering and death, here and around the world.

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves." (Golinski)

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13173 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
Your bigoted analogy bears no fruit...Smirk

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13174 Mar 3, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bigoted analogy bears no fruit...Smirk
An analogy cannot be bigoted.

It can be right or wrong.

This one bears fruit because it is spot on right and exposes the silliness of 'demanding a heterosexual couple bear children'.

Moreover, this demand comes from couples who are mutually incapable of ever bearing children!

Snicker.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13176 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
An analogy cannot be bigoted.
It can be right or wrong.
This one bears fruit because it is spot on right and exposes the silliness of 'demanding a heterosexual couple bear children'.
Moreover, this demand comes from couples who are mutually incapable of ever bearing children!
Snicker.
Oh but it can, based on intent....Man, you are really f(_)cked up..no one is 'demanding a heterosexual couple bear children'...I certainly don't want YOU to have ANY! If anything you're the one harping that reproduction be a requirement for marriage, which is totally discriminatory and asinine.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

El Paso Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
homosexual couples food stamps bill 7 hr huey goins 33
I hate El Paso! (Jan '08) 7 hr FU El Paso haters 1,542
Three join race for EPISD board 9 hr vanilla ad campaign 1
El Paso City Council candidate pleaded guilty t... 10 hr vanilla ad campaign 5
St. Patrick's Day 16 hr huey goins 9
Miss Black El Paso 2015 crowned Saturday Tue scrappy the ghost 6
Appraisal protests Tue renters cannot pr... 7
El Paso Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

El Paso People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:48 am PST

Bleacher Report11:48AM
Chris Myers to Be Released by Texans: Latest Details, Comments, Reaction
Yahoo! Sports12:24 PM
Cowboys re-sign RFA WR Beasley
ESPN12:40 PM
Texans cut stalwart center Myers, save $6M
Bleacher Report 4:08 PM
Keith Rivers to Cowboys: Latest Contract Details, Comments and Reaction
NFL 4:17 PM
Keith Rivers signs one-year contract with Cowboys