Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

Jun 11, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Contra Costa Times

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.

Comments
12,181 - 12,200 of 12,363 Comments Last updated May 30, 2014

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13133
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
You finally got one right. It is not genetic - period.
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. But it is the reason that people get married and it is the reason that gives the State a compelling interest in fostering opposite sex marriage.
1. You make a blonde assertion. That issue is not proved yet. Period.

However, it is quickly being understood. You might want to look up 'epi-marker' mistakes...

2. The bare essence of marriage is this; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are 100% incapable of procreation within their relationship. Desolate. There is no prevailing government interest in providing support and protection to a friendship.

In fact, there is already more support for default family situations then there is for biological natural families.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13136
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You make a blonde assertion. That issue is not proved yet. Period.
However, it is quickly being understood. You might want to look up 'epi-marker' mistakes...
2. The bare essence of marriage is this; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are 100% incapable of procreation within their relationship. Desolate. There is no prevailing government interest in providing support and protection to a friendship.
In fact, there is already more support for default family situations then there is for biological natural families.
Smile.
None of the above has anything to do with SSM, SS relationships, or equality. These are merely the opinions of a near senile old man

I'm a little ashamed of that third nipple; perhaps we could have it frozen off?

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13137
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Every one has equal treatment under the law. Where the law says two men can get married, ANY two men can get married. Whether or not they are queer has nothing to do with it.
Conversely where the law says two men cannot obtain a marriage license, NO two men can do so. Whether or not they are queer has nothing to do with that either.
What we DO have is no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for re-defining Traditional Marriage.
Wrong..there is a legitimate government interest, Marriage is a traditional VALUE and a legitimate right. Everyone has the RIGHT to those Values. Denying those rights to a specific group of people by making them gender specific without regard to sexual identity is called discrimination.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13138
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Every one has equal treatment under the law. Where the law says two men can get married, ANY two men can get married. Whether or not they are queer has nothing to do with it.
Conversely where the law says two men cannot obtain a marriage license, NO two men can do so. Whether or not they are queer has nothing to do with that either.
What we DO have is no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for re-defining Traditional Marriage.
What is it that you really fear? I ask, because your argument is totally lame. Are you afraid that you'll have to get a divorce and marry someone of the same sex?s
Anne Ominous

Spencer, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13139
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong..there is a legitimate government interest, Marriage is a traditional VALUE and a legitimate right. Everyone has the RIGHT to those Values. Denying those rights to a specific group of people by making them gender specific without regard to sexual identity is called discrimination.
You must be related to Babs. You spout the same brand of nonsense.

Marriage is a contract. There are rules and regulations about who can enter into it, and who cannot.

If marriage were a right it would have to be freely available to everybody. It's already limited in a variety of ways. Sex is just one of them.
Anne Ominous

Spencer, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13140
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You make a blonde assertion. That issue is not proved yet. Period.
Not for lack of trying. With the amount of effort that has gone into finding a "gay gene" and failing to do so, I stand by my opinion that there is no such thing.

Also, in the case of identical twins (which have identical DNA), we do not see identical orientation.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13141
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for lack of trying. With the amount of effort that has gone into finding a "gay gene" and failing to do so, I stand by my opinion that there is no such thing.
Also, in the case of identical twins (which have identical DNA), we do not see identical orientation.
I'm sorry, you are right.

There is no indication of a gay gene. There is strong evidence of genetic related cause however (epi-markers mistakenly left on the DNA of the wrong gender by the opposite sex parent).

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13143
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be related to Babs. You spout the same brand of nonsense.
Marriage is a contract. There are rules and regulations about who can enter into it, and who cannot.
If marriage were a right it would have to be freely available to everybody. It's already limited in a variety of ways. Sex is just one of them.
A contract, Ok..but the criteria for limiting who can enter that contract is mostly medical and doesn't apply to SSM. It's still discrimination.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13144
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for lack of trying. With the amount of effort that has gone into finding a "gay gene" and failing to do so, I stand by my opinion that there is no such thing.
Also, in the case of identical twins (which have identical DNA), we do not see identical orientation.
So what? Whether it's genetic, environmental or behavioral, being gay is still NOT a choice for most. You and Kilmare there, are just going to have to accept that you live in a diversified world and bigotry in any form is unacceptable or suffer the sad consequences. Your CHOICE.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13145
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
blah blah blah
Marriage is not a right, and all the homobabble in the world won't change that simple fact.
Well, except in American, where the courts have repeatedly deemed marriage a basic civil and fundamental right ....

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13146
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be related to Babs. You spout the same brand of nonsense.
Marriage is a contract. There are rules and regulations about who can enter into it, and who cannot.
If marriage were a right it would have to be freely available to everybody. It's already limited in a variety of ways. Sex is just one of them.
It actually IS freely available to everybody, with ONLY such restrictions as have been deemed in the state's best interest.

Since there is NO state interest in banning gay couples from legally marrying, and great state interest in allowing it, your argument falls a bit flat.

To prevent same sex couples from marrying, you would need to prove that it's bad for them, bad for their children, bad for elderly gay people, and good for beneficial for society in a tangible way.

No one has yet been able to do that, and a lot of time and money has been spent trying. Can you do it?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13147
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for lack of trying. With the amount of effort that has gone into finding a "gay gene" and failing to do so, I stand by my opinion that there is no such thing.
Also, in the case of identical twins (which have identical DNA), we do not see identical orientation.
Finding a "gay gene" certainly isn't necessary for equal protectio9n under the law. Why would it be?

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.

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

What would that state interest be?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13148
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
You finally got one right. It is not genetic - period.
.......
Actually, studies have shown that - at least in gay men - there is likely a genetic component.

But that has no bearing on marriage law.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13149
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Connie Linguiss wrote:
Gay people should not be allowed to marry. That is destroying the tradition of man and woman. Stop crying already and accept it.
Traditions are made to be destroyed...but how does SSM affect your marriage in any way?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13150
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
What we DO have is no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for re-defining Traditional Marriage.
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?
Anne Ominous

Spencer, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13151
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
A contract, Ok..but the criteria for limiting who can enter that contract is mostly medical and doesn't apply to SSM. It's still discrimination.
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?
Anne Ominous

Spencer, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13152
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
bigotry in any form <snip>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Anne Ominous

Spencer, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13153
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, except in American, where the courts have repeatedly deemed marriage a basic civil and fundamental right ....
The courts haven't done anything remotely like that. Marriage is not a right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13154
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.

Anne Ominous

Spencer, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13155
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I
Since there is NO state interest in banning gay couples from legally marrying, and great state interest in allowing it
I've already explained why there is no state interest in allowing homosexual marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Green Island Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Green Island People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Green Island News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Green Island
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••