Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A 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!
Smirk.

Uve wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because it's all bigoted twirl, there is NO reasonable response and definitely not to an arrogant condescending moron!

Nothing bigoted about it.

You are right, there is no argument against it. It destroys the gay contention that you must demand all married couples have children.

That's why you resort to ad homoan attacks and hate.

Smile.

[Not Yet Equal]

While procreation has never been a requirement, even that excuse ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment provides nothing to opposite sex families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

"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.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

[KiMare]

Not Yet Equal wrote:

While procreation has never been a requirement, even that excuse ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment provides nothing to opposite sex families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
"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.
Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

Your argument about 'requirement' is destroyed by this analogy;

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!

Moreover, if denial of marriage deprives gay couples with children, it also does numerous other relationships, including single parents. It literally dumbs down marriage to a meaningless term.

The only thing that marriage does is distinguish a completely unique relationship, the cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior.

[Truthmaster]

I don't understand how a gay man refused to accept he is gay and vents on other people?

[Dusty Mangina]

Truthmaster wrote:

I don't understand how a gay man refused to accept he is gay and vents on other people?

Surely you don't mean my Kimare? Say it isn't so....

I'm Kimare's internal lesbian (bitch) and I approved this message.

[Anne Ominous]

SylvioAratis wrote:

<quoted text>
Bigots

morons with no argument scream "bigot"

[Anne Ominous]

Not Done Babbling wrote:

even that excuse ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce

Oh really, Babs?

Let's conduct a little experiment.

We need three uninhabited islands, and three groups of people.

On one island we put all men. On the second all women. On the third, a mix.

No one can come or go to any of the islands.

When we check in five or ten years, whats your prediction for the likelihood of children on any of the islands?

[Anne Ominous]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Your argument about 'requirement' is destroyed by this analogy;

His "argument" is just a dodge to deflect attention away from the uncomfortable questions. I can't wait to see how he tries to wriggle out of the one I just posed.

[Uve]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A 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!
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Nothing bigoted about it.
You are right, there is no argument against it. It destroys the gay contention that you must demand all married couples have children.
That's why you resort to ad homoan attacks and hate.
Smile.

Typical...Your whole persona is bigotry..I have no 'gay contention' that all married couples have children, that's in your sick little mind and more bigoted twirl. Now you cry 'ad homoan' when someone calls you out on your BS. I don't hate groups of people for being who they are, like you do, just POS like you. smirk from my ass crack!

[Uve]

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Weak
Lame
Ineffective
Try harder

What are 'we' pretending to be grading a term paper? Well, you can grade this F. For F(_)ck You! Sick Bigoted POS

[Klaus]

Uve wrote:

<quoted text>
smirk from my ass crack!

Why does everything come down to asses with you people? You're disgusting.

[Uve]

Klaus wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does everything come down to asses with you people? You're disgusting.

Keep your fantasizing to yourself..POS

[Uve]

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh really, Babs?
Let's conduct a little experiment.
We need three uninhabited islands, and three groups of people.
On one island we put all men. On the second all women. On the third, a mix.
No one can come or go to any of the islands.
When we check in five or ten years, whats your prediction for the likelihood of children on any of the islands?

LOL You've created a whole new category! It's called BIGOT BABBLE!

[KiMare]

Uve wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical...Your whole persona is bigotry..I have no 'gay contention' that all married couples have children, that's in your sick little mind and more bigoted twirl. Now you cry 'ad homoan' when someone calls you out on your BS. I don't hate groups of people for being who they are, like you do, just POS like you. smirk from my ass crack!

All you said was, "I'm one bitchy ass crack".

You are not a lesbian, the fact is, no man wants to marry you!

Did you notice that Bruce Willis and I have the same smirk.

Smile.

[KiMare]

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really, Babs?
Let's conduct a little experiment.
We need three uninhabited islands, and three groups of people.
On one island we put all men. On the second all women. On the third, a mix.
No one can come or go to any of the islands.
When we check in five or ten years, whats your prediction for the likelihood of children on any of the islands?

Uve wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL You've created a whole new category! It's called BIGOT BABBLE!

And we have another blonde ad homoan troll attack!

Looking for a gay with a brain and a reason...

Smirk.

[Anne Ominous]

Uve wrote:

<quoted text>
What are 'we' pretending to be grading a term paper? Well, you can grade this F. For F(_)ck You! Sick Bigoted POS

morons with no argument scream "bigot"

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully

:)

[Anne Ominous]

Uve wrote:

<quoted text>
BIGOT

morons with no argument scream "bigot"

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>

Did you notice that Bruce Willis and I have the same smirk.
Smile.

When he pulls his pants down and bends over, his smirk looks identical to your face.

Other

[Mother of Anne]

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"

Now Anne, you know what your psychiatrist said about your screaming.

[Mother of Anne]

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully
:)

Now Anne, must I wash your vile mouth out with Clorox again?