Some gay-rights foes claim they now a...

Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

There are 12354 comments on the Contra Costa Times story from Jun 11, 2011, titled Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied. In it, Contra Costa Times reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Contra Costa Times.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12882 Jan 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
While examples can be found to fulfill your stereotype and support your prejudice, that is not the full story of the reality of the wide range of same sex relationships. You simply do not see the many gay women who do not fit your stereotype.
I denied no range, I specifically addressed two extremes of the lesbian range.

I suspect you understood my question perfectly and are simply making a lame attempt to divert from it.

If you can't answer it, or don't want to, simply say so. But why would you try to twist and distort what I said? Do you think that honors your position???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12883 Jan 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Many have changed their understanding of gay people in the last 15 years, and it is possible many more will in the next 15 years, but that is still a long time to wait for equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments, and as promised in the founding documents, for those who have been denied equal treatment their entire lives. It is also a long time to wait for the young people who kill themselves every year because they can't assimilate their sexual orientation with the dehumanizing prejudice they were taught by the world from early childhood.
The science is in. All mainstream medical and social science organizations in the US agree, being gay is a natural expression of human love and bonding for a minority of the population. It has always been that way, and there is no longer any reasonable or scientifically supportable excuse for prejudice and discrimination. We also know for certain, that prejudice and discrimination lead to suffering and death. Now is the time to discard the unsupportable prejudice we have been taught from childhood, and treat others as you would yourself, under the law.
You are right, thinking is always changing. Many times it runs in cycles. But that is reality, and reality never changes.

The science is not 'in'. It is coming in, which brings up genetic epi-markers. It is now the most likely explanation for homosexuality. A epi-marker defectively left on the wrong gender. This explains the question of homosexuality and evolution, and one of the many simple, but clear questions of how a orientation could violate the design of the anus. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

Before we judge discrimination, we must determine if a relationship equates to marriage.

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

Out of all relationship types, gay couples are a direct defective failure of the primary purpose of evolution and mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12884 Jan 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Which brings up to the question,
Since you call yourself a "monster mutation", do you thin you should have been aborted?
You're worthless.:)
Which brings up why a mother would murder her own child. Why did you think your child was worthless?

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12885 Jan 28, 2013
boingo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, gaymaster. What would you like non-gay people to refer to you as? Fruits? Dykes? Homies? Homos? Jotos? Etc? Are all politically incorrect. People refer to you as gay to be nice. Since every straight person on the planet refers to homosexuals as gay, they must all be gay is your theory? Maybe the gay lifestyle is affecting your brain. You are categorized and put in a box. That is just the way life is. In this day and age, a lot of people care and they are not willing to just look at two fags kissing in public and say, "oh look, how cute". Sorry, the vision of two bearded dudes kissing and fondling each other in public seems burned in my mind. Envision the ZZ-Top guys but fat fondling one another and kissing in public. I don't agree with heterosezual couples show too much affection in public, but dudes doing it is just flat out wrong. Have some level of respect. What doesn't bother you can be bothersome to others. Of course, you have the right to do as you please, but don't sit there in public grabbing one another's asses and slipping the dick around. Be respectful of other people. These are some of the reasons that people have issue with this crap. It's not so much the people being gay as the public expression. We wouldn't be open to a guy f@@@ing a woman for fondling her in public, so guys on guys don't fair any better. Respect. Maybe gay people have forgotten WTF is respect. Do as you wish behind closed doors. There are kids in public and people. Hard to answer the question of, "look daddy, those two guys were kissing, are they fags?...(Daddy looking for answers .... Uh they are just good friends son)".
Yes, we all accept gay people as humans, but don't take it too far, it's not cool.
Where the hell do you people get these ideas from? I've lived near and been to San Francisco for many years and even there I've never seen gays or straights acting like that. A quick kiss is the most I've seen, no public groping and penis fondling. Talk about unfounded fears, you people are really paranoid.
Truthmaster

United States

#12886 Jan 28, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "homophobe"
I am not arguing with anyone. Just stating an opinion. No hate here.
Mother of Anne

Pompano Beach, FL

#12887 Jan 28, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "homophobe"
I know, Darling, but you must admit your lesbian arrangement has worked for years.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12888 Jan 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I denied no range, I specifically addressed two extremes of the lesbian range.
I suspect you understood my question perfectly and are simply making a lame attempt to divert from it.
If you can't answer it, or don't want to, simply say so. But why would you try to twist and distort what I said? Do you think that honors your position???
Smile.
You repeat that stereotype so often it appeares you believe all lesbians fit that model.

Why those who fulfill your stereotype do so, I have no idea. You'd have to ask them.
But why do you care?

It also appears your repeated use of this stereotype is intended to demean all lesbians.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12889 Jan 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right, thinking is always changing. Many times it runs in cycles. But that is reality, and reality never changes.
The science is not 'in'. It is coming in, which brings up genetic epi-markers. It is now the most likely explanation for homosexuality. A epi-marker defectively left on the wrong gender. This explains the question of homosexuality and evolution, and one of the many simple, but clear questions of how a orientation could violate the design of the anus. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Before we judge discrimination, we must determine if a relationship equates to marriage.
The most basic essence of marriage is this; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Out of all relationship types, gay couples are a direct defective failure of the primary purpose of evolution and mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.
Smile.
When a fundamental right such as marriage is involved, we judge discrimination by the denial of equal treatment.

Your personal requirement is not a requirement of law. No law requires the ability for procreation. Same sex couples can fulfill all of the requirements, except for the gender requirement in those jurisdictions where gender restrictions still apply.

Your beliefs about anal sex are yours, and not shared by most who practice it. There is no inerrant harm, and it is not inherently demeaning for those who voluntarily practice it.

Yet not all men, and few women practice it, yet you use it as a way to demean all gay men and women.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12890 Jan 28, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "homophobe"
People who demonstrate anti-gay attitudes fulfill the definition of homophobe. No fear is required.

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.[1][2][3] Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[4]" (Wiki)
Anne Ominous

Greeley, PA

#12892 Jan 28, 2013
"In the 1970's, to reinforce their sense of identity as a community, American homosexuals adopted the term gay to defile themselves and spoke of the gay community. Not content with an objective and scientific sounding name such as homosexuality, they created a positive denomination. Moreover, by this term, homosexuals wanted to answer the psychiatric argument that homosexuality was a result of unhappy childhood. They wanted to emphasize how joyful homosexuality is.

After creating a positive word to define themselves, homosexual activists invented a negative word to attack their opponents : homophobic. Like gay, homophobic is new a term adopted by the medias. Since phobia refers to a psychological symptom, the term homophobra shifts the accusation of mental disorder from the homosexual to any person hostile to homosexuality. "
Mother of Anne

Pompano Beach, FL

#12893 Jan 28, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
People who have sex with the same sex fulfill the definition of disgusting pervert.
Now, Anne, are you fighting with Butchita again?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12894 Jan 28, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
"In the 1970's, to reinforce their sense of identity as a community, American homosexuals adopted the term gay to defile themselves and spoke of the gay community. Not content with an objective and scientific sounding name such as homosexuality, they created a positive denomination. Moreover, by this term, homosexuals wanted to answer the psychiatric argument that homosexuality was a result of unhappy childhood. They wanted to emphasize how joyful homosexuality is.
After creating a positive word to define themselves, homosexual activists invented a negative word to attack their opponents : homophobic. Like gay, homophobic is new a term adopted by the medias. Since phobia refers to a psychological symptom, the term homophobra shifts the accusation of mental disorder from the homosexual to any person hostile to homosexuality. "
Your inaccurate quote (source?) relies on pejorative terminology and fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for harming others by refusing to treat them as you would yourself, under the law.

Use of the word "gay" by LGBT people to describe themselves predates the word "homosexual".

Anti-gay prejudice is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as legal discrimination, slurs, and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation.

Cookie_Parker

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#12895 Jan 28, 2013
PlacitasRoy wrote:
"pressuring companies and law firms into policy reversals, making it taboo in some circumstances to express opposition to same-sex marriage." Ironic that all these intolerant right-wing bastards are opposed to the free market.
"They're advocating for a lot of changes in the name of tolerance," said Jim Campbell, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. "Yet ironically the tolerance is not returned, for people of faith who don't agree with their agenda."
To tolerate intolerant people is morally reprehensible! Especially when they are self-righteous bigoted bible thumpers.
""We are unjustly called 'haters' and 'bigots' by those who have carefully framed their advocacy strategy," Truth hurts their little bigoted feelings!
"Exodus International, a network of ministries which depict homosexuality as a destructive condition that can be overcome through Christian faith." 'Pray Away the Gay' is psychosocial malpractice that can lead to depression and suicide.
Pray away the gay is a monetary scam by the corporate born again evangelical political party cult of the republicans.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12896 Jan 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I denied no range, I specifically addressed two extremes of the lesbian range.
I suspect you understood my question perfectly and are simply making a lame attempt to divert from it.
If you can't answer it, or don't want to, simply say so. But why would you try to twist and distort what I said? Do you think that honors your position???
Smile.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You repeat that stereotype so often it appeares you believe all lesbians fit that model.
Why those who fulfill your stereotype do so, I have no idea. You'd have to ask them.
But why do you care?
It also appears your repeated use of this stereotype is intended to demean all lesbians.
I repeat it because I'm waiting for a honest answer. You still don't have one do you? Nothing new on a host of points...

As usual, you resort to the ad homoan attack about supposed hate in lieu of a logical answer. Simple fact is, I make no judgment about lesbians. I simply ask a fair question.

Your false accusations will not stop me from stating facts. I know that is embarrassing and frustrating to you.

Sorry.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12897 Jan 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right, thinking is always changing. Many times it runs in cycles. But that is reality, and reality never changes.
The science is not 'in'. It is coming in, which brings up genetic epi-markers. It is now the most likely explanation for homosexuality. A epi-marker defectively left on the wrong gender. This explains the question of homosexuality and evolution, and one of the many simple, but clear questions of how a orientation could violate the design of the anus. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Before we judge discrimination, we must determine if a relationship equates to marriage.
The most basic essence of marriage is this; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Out of all relationship types, gay couples are a direct defective failure of the primary purpose of evolution and mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.
Smile.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When a fundamental right such as marriage is involved, we judge discrimination by the denial of equal treatment.
Your personal requirement is not a requirement of law. No law requires the ability for procreation. Same sex couples can fulfill all of the requirements, except for the gender requirement in those jurisdictions where gender restrictions still apply.
Your beliefs about anal sex are yours, and not shared by most who practice it. There is no inerrant harm, and it is not inherently demeaning for those who voluntarily practice it.
Yet not all men, and few women practice it, yet you use it as a way to demean all gay men and women.
Under your definition, any relationship by any number of people can claim the rights and benefits of marriage.

I simply expressed the basic essence of marriage. No need to require procreation, it typically happens. Gay couples fail miserably at that very starting point. Hardly a denial of equality!

I never stated 'my beliefs' about anal sex. I simply stated the medical facts. Nor did I distinguish between orientations. Your problem is not with my beliefs, it is that I expose the distinction between natural sex and the primary form of gay sex.

Where heterosexual is the union of two designed to fit together, gay sex is a violent abuse of design, and lesbian sex, at the opposite extreme, has nothing to 'fit'.

Please stop whining and give some logical reasoned answers, or concede.

Smile.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12898 Jan 29, 2013
Dude, I totally love your smiles and smirks at the end of every post. With just one word you manage to convey what a total piece of shit you are. I applaud you, a job well done.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12899 Jan 29, 2013
MrProstitute wrote:
Dude, I totally love your smiles and smirks at the end of every post. With just one word you manage to convey what a total piece of shit you are. I applaud you, a job well done.
A well reasoned response mrporstitute.

Snicker.
Mother of Anne

Pompano Beach, FL

#12900 Jan 29, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
WTF does the KKK have to do with anything?
LOL, the H-word. Perfect timing :)
Now, Anne, you know this means you get the soap tonight!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12901 Jan 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right, thinking is always changing. Many times it runs in cycles. But that is reality, and reality never changes.
The science is not 'in'. It is coming in, which brings up genetic epi-markers. It is now the most likely explanation for homosexuality. A epi-marker defectively left on the wrong gender. This explains the question of homosexuality and evolution, and one of the many simple, but clear questions of how a orientation could violate the design of the anus. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Before we judge discrimination, we must determine if a relationship equates to marriage.
The most basic essence of marriage is this; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Out of all relationship types, gay couples are a direct defective failure of the primary purpose of evolution and mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Under your definition, any relationship by any number of people can claim the rights and benefits of marriage.
I simply expressed the basic essence of marriage. No need to require procreation, it typically happens. Gay couples fail miserably at that very starting point. Hardly a denial of equality!
I never stated 'my beliefs' about anal sex. I simply stated the medical facts. Nor did I distinguish between orientations. Your problem is not with my beliefs, it is that I expose the distinction between natural sex and the primary form of gay sex.
Where heterosexual is the union of two designed to fit together, gay sex is a violent abuse of design, and lesbian sex, at the opposite extreme, has nothing to 'fit'.
Please stop whining and give some logical reasoned answers, or concede.
Smile.
You still provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

Straight couples gain nothing, and gay couples are harmed for no reason other than to support a traditional irrational prejudice.

It is you who should concede and stop offering irrational yet demonizing and dehumanizing excuses for harming others by denial of equal treatment as promised in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14 amendments for all persons.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12902 Jan 30, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You still provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.
Straight couples gain nothing, and gay couples are harmed for no reason other than to support a traditional irrational prejudice.
It is you who should concede and stop offering irrational yet demonizing and dehumanizing excuses for harming others by denial of equal treatment as promised in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14 amendments for all persons.
You not only have failed to equate gay couples to marriage, you have dumbed down marriage to a friendship that the government has no prevailing interest in supporting AND establish discrimination by limiting the friendship to two people.

You also make an unprovable and idiotic assertion that there will be no affect on society.

You conclude by asserting a gross violation of Constitutional intent.

Once again, before you take your straw man down any of these rabbit trails, you must establish that out of all relationships, gay couples equate to marriage.

Good luck.

Smile.

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
News LCPS to scrap positions (May '11) Mon Hashinshin 113
kiki vigil - again - no way May 19 Bloodonhishands2 2
Gang problems in Las Cruces (Sep '07) May 12 sam 226
Are these Elks Drive/Trinity Lutheran/Jornada E... May 8 PlanningBetterBeBest 2
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) May 8 doG mnaDed lyoH i... 72,083
Las Cruces Music Selection (Sep '12) Apr '18 Musikologist 16
News Lujan Grisham cruises at Democratic convention Apr '18 Bloodonhishands 20

Las Cruces Jobs

Personal Finance

Las Cruces Mortgages