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

Sayre, PA

#12646 Dec 6, 2012
Bonafides wrote:
<quoted text>
Was I talking to you? Mind your own business...unless you're f##cking Annie.
Somebody sounds a bit testy!

LOL

:)
Bonafides

United States

#12647 Dec 6, 2012
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
They know exactly what they are, but they are delighted that you consider it an insult to insinuate that they are actually hoemoes.
You obviously have not the slightest comprehension of the magnitude of revulsion that homosexuality generates in a normal person.
The thing is, you're not normal, so your opinion is pretty much moot.
Bonafides

United States

#12648 Dec 6, 2012
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTFLMAO!!!
Keep dreaming, sweetie. The VAST majority of Americans support Traditional Marriage. Always have, always will.
:)
At best, 50% support "traditional marriage", and that number is comprised of old farts like you who will be dead in ten years.

Give it up Anne, your little world is coming to an end, and you know it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12649 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
<quoted text>
My 'prejudice'??? Now when you disagree with facts, it is prejudice??? So stupid silly...
Smirk.
Just a note. Children ARE harmed when they lose the only father and mother they will ever have. That is EXACTLY why marriage was given special rights!
Bazinga!
Again, this relies on your prejudice alone, not the facts of law or reflection of real world marriage relationships.

You don't have to raise children to get married, you don't have to get married to raise children, yet many gay people are married and raising children, while like many straight people, some choose not to raise children. Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual for all persons, independent of children.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12650 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The law does not require marriage. It exists apart from the law. Like I said, it's fundamental purpose is to protect biological children and the mother.
There already are numerous laws that do so for default children.
Adding gay couples would add a huge percentage of childless couples whereas heterosexual couples are extremely likely and the only couple capable of having children in the natural and best setting.
ALL other rights and privileges other couples need are already available outside marriage.
There is no prejudice in what I say, simply facts.
:-)
Your desire to deny marriage equality relies on your prejudice.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual for all persons. It does not depend on how many people exercise of that right. This right does not depend on having children. Your excuse to deny equality does not reflect real life families, nor the law.

Gay married couples are having and raising children, despite what you believe is the best setting. But your "best setting" ignores that Child Protective Services remove children from you imagined "best setting" every day as a result of abuse and neglect every day. Having two biological parents is no guarantee of proper parenting, let alone survival. Yet the fundamental right of marriage remains intact even when parents are found to be unfit as parents, even if they are sent to prison. Convicted child abusers in prison can still get married.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12651 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad YOUR parents didn't see it that way.
<quoted text>
You expose the level of your intelligence.
Over and over.
Grow up and get help.
Take a bath while you are at it, you have crap in your mouth...
Smirk.
Bonafides wrote:
<quoted text>
Was I talking to you? Mind your own business...unless you're f##cking Annie.
This is an open forum sonny, I'll respond to anyone I please.

It is your problem that you have a dirty mouth and an empty mind. I suggest you shut up, listen and learn...

SMile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12652 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The law does not require marriage. It exists apart from the law. Like I said, it's fundamental purpose is to protect biological children and the mother.
There already are numerous laws that do so for default children.
Adding gay couples would add a huge percentage of childless couples whereas heterosexual couples are extremely likely and the only couple capable of having children in the natural and best setting.
ALL other rights and privileges other couples need are already available outside marriage.
There is no prejudice in what I say, simply facts.
:-)
Bonafides wrote:
<quoted text>
Uradouche is right, you really are boring
In other words, you have no argument for truth.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12653 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
<quoted text>
My 'prejudice'??? Now when you disagree with facts, it is prejudice??? So stupid silly...
Smirk.
Just a note. Children ARE harmed when they lose the only father and mother they will ever have. That is EXACTLY why marriage was given special rights!
Bazinga!
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, this relies on your prejudice alone, not the facts of law or reflection of real world marriage relationships.
You don't have to raise children to get married, you don't have to get married to raise children, yet many gay people are married and raising children, while like many straight people, some choose not to raise children. Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual for all persons, independent of children.
Again, hardly prejudice at all.

You focus on a narrow aspect of law with the intent of acquiring numerous aspects you don't qualify for.

You are playing a game you will lose to reality.

:-)

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12654 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
<quoted text>
My 'prejudice'??? Now when you disagree with facts, it is prejudice??? So stupid silly...
Smirk.
Just a note. Children ARE harmed when they lose the only father and mother they will ever have. That is EXACTLY why marriage was given special rights!
Bazinga!
<quoted text>
Again, hardly prejudice at all.
You focus on a narrow aspect of law with the intent of acquiring numerous aspects you don't qualify for.
You are playing a game you will lose to reality.
:-)
The law defines marriage as a fundamental right of the individual for all persons, not a privilege for those who meet your prejudices. It does not require children for this fundamental right to belong to all persons. Child abusers, spouse abusers remain married even when convicted of harming their spouse or children, or can get remarried while in prison. Your desire to require responsible biological parenting is not a legal requirement, but rather your own personal prejudice.

While procreation is not a requirement for the fundamental right of marriage, you continue to ignore that gay people can and do reproduce, and encouraging them to provide a stable home is equally as important as it is for straight families. Again harming gay families provides no benefit to straight families. It only harms gay people and their children for no justifiable reason. It serves no legitimate governmental interest.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12655 Dec 6, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The law defines marriage as a fundamental right of the individual for all persons, not a privilege for those who meet your prejudices. It does not require children for this fundamental right to belong to all persons. Child abusers, spouse abusers remain married even when convicted of harming their spouse or children, or can get remarried while in prison. Your desire to require responsible biological parenting is not a legal requirement, but rather your own personal prejudice.
While procreation is not a requirement for the fundamental right of marriage, you continue to ignore that gay people can and do reproduce, and encouraging them to provide a stable home is equally as important as it is for straight families. Again harming gay families provides no benefit to straight families. It only harms gay people and their children for no justifiable reason. It serves no legitimate governmental interest.
The law has no power or authority to define marriage.

It can and already has, as I noted many times, acknowledged the fundamental importance of marriage and procreation as the singular building block of our society.

Any other relationship cannot qualify for that identity.

Your attempts to deny those distinctions are the real prejudice. Abhorrent because it is primarily against women and children. You should be ashamed. Man up!

Judged:

18

18

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
uradouche

Woodside, NY

#12656 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
<quoted text>
My 'prejudice'??? Now when you disagree with facts, it is prejudice??? So stupid silly...
Smirk.
Just a note. Children ARE harmed when they lose the only father and mother they will ever have. That is EXACTLY why marriage was given special rights!
Bazinga!
<quoted text>
Again, hardly prejudice at all.
You focus on a narrow aspect of law with the intent of acquiring numerous aspects you don't qualify for.
You are playing a game you will lose to reality.
:-)
Wow, I start yawning every time I read one of your posts.

You could bore the balls off a bull.

Judged:

16

16

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12657 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
<quoted text>
My 'prejudice'??? Now when you disagree with facts, it is prejudice??? So stupid silly...
Smirk.
Just a note. Children ARE harmed when they lose the only father and mother they will ever have. That is EXACTLY why marriage was given special rights!
Bazinga!
<quoted text>
Again, hardly prejudice at all.
You focus on a narrow aspect of law with the intent of acquiring numerous aspects you don't qualify for.
You are playing a game you will lose to reality.
:-)
uradouche wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I start yawning every time I read one of your posts.
You could bore the balls off a bull.
Most people would say you were simply dumbfounded.

I think that is giving you too much credit.

Bazinga!

Judged:

20

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
uradouche

Woodside, NY

#12658 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
<quoted text>
My 'prejudice'??? Now when you disagree with facts, it is prejudice??? So stupid silly...
Smirk.
Just a note. Children ARE harmed when they lose the only father and mother they will ever have. That is EXACTLY why marriage was given special rights!
Bazinga!
<quoted text>
Again, hardly prejudice at all.
You focus on a narrow aspect of law with the intent of acquiring numerous aspects you don't qualify for.
You are playing a game you will lose to reality.
:-)
<quoted text>
Most people would say you were simply dumbfounded.
I think that is giving you too much credit.
Bazinga!
Oh, sorry... I was reading your post and I dozed off.

Judged:

17

17

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
tahW

Tewksbury, MA

#12659 Dec 6, 2012
It's basically something that gay people want cause they don't have it. If straight people stick bats up their ears, gay people will want that too.

Judged:

27

27

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12660 Dec 6, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The law has no power or authority to define marriage.
It can and already has, as I noted many times, acknowledged the fundamental importance of marriage and procreation as the singular building block of our society.
Yes it has, and it clearly is talking about opposite sex marriage when it does so.

Judged:

17

17

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12661 Dec 6, 2012
uradouche wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I start yawning every time I read one of your posts.
You could bore the balls off a bull.
No one is forcing you to come here and read them, are they?

:)

Judged:

18

18

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12662 Dec 6, 2012
tahW wrote:
It's basically something that gay people want cause they don't have it. If straight people stick bats up their ears, gay people will want that too.
LOL

Let's start a rumor that all straight people have killed themselves.

Judged:

18

18

17

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12663 Dec 6, 2012
Bonafides wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is a contract, then legally any two consenting adults can enter into it.
Sure, as long as they fulfill the legal requirements to enter into the contract.

Judged:

18

18

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12664 Dec 6, 2012
Bonafides wrote:
<quoted text>
At best, 50% support "traditional marriage", and that number is comprised of old farts like you who will be dead in ten years.
Give it up Anne, your little world is coming to an end, and you know it.
Our big wide world is going nowhere but up, sweetie.

This notion that marriage supporters are dying off is just another homo-fiction. As people mature and gain wisdom, the become more conservative. When I was in my twenties I wouldn't have had any opinion on homosexual marriage. At that age all we were interested in is partying and living in the moment.

When one gets older and begins to look at the future and what we would like for our children, things change. There will always be a new corps of marriage supporters coming along to take our places.

But you go right ahead and hold on to that idea if it comforts you LOL

:)

Judged:

16

16

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12665 Dec 6, 2012
Bonafides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the law. It doesn't matter how it got that way.
I realize that you don't care how you achieve your selfish goals with no regard for the vast majority of Americans who think differently. Then you whine about "hate".
You may not like it, but who cares what you think?
I refer you back to the very first page of this thread. Post #13.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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.

Las Cruces Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 10 min Eric 71,024
Ariel Dougherty and Sophia Peron: Financial woe... 8 hr scammed 17
Wi-Power high-speed Internet, Digital phone ser... (Jun '10) 10 hr Tell Me AnotherOne 58
BREAKING: Shooting reported near South Main and... (Mar '11) Fri manny mf loc 77
kimberly Clown face atencio Dec 17 worried citizen 1
Diversity issues at NMSU raised during regents ... Dec 15 Help 1
what happened on Solano lastnight? Dec 15 worried citizen 1
Las Cruces Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Las Cruces People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Las Cruces News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Las Cruces

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Broncos vs. Bengals: TV Info, Spread, Injury Updates, Game Time and More
Bleacher Report10:01 AM
Emmanuel Sanders Illness: Updates on Broncos Star's Status and Return
Bleacher Report11:04 AM
Peyton (Thigh) Questionable vs. Bengals
NFL11:07 AM
Peyton Manning (thigh) questionable vs. Bengals
NBC Sports11:54 AM
Knighton takes on bigger role in Denver this season - NBC Sports