Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.
Comments
3,881 - 3,900 of 54,808 Comments Last updated 14 min ago
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4295
Jun 26, 2013
 
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
What the heck is "the continuity of biological strategy" ???
The continuity of of biological strategy is something that you'll completely deny no matter the overwhelming evolutionary logic of it.
Gay

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4296
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Do you need a perfect sexual, hansom gay mate contact gay provider now via mobile: +2347068973788
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4297
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text> I think he is referring to "continuity strategy", an element of evolution theory. As species evolve, the newer species retain both biological and psychological aspects of the one they are supplanting. But then again, he does seem to be trying pretty darn desperately to rationalize his irrational bigotry. He may not have even the faintest clue as to what he really means.
No, I'm refering to the continuity of the strategy, not the biology.

DO NOT attempt to speak for me. But, if you want to present a counter argument, feel free to do so. So far, no gay rights supporter is even slightly willing to discuss the possibility that their obsession is a mental disorder, a minor one, but a disorder none the less, and certainly NOT any kind of Libertarian ideal that all citizens need to support as if all reason were based on it.

Feel free to get back to reason. Don't parse a point down to sound bites that you dispose of with rhetoric. You might as well say that if one doesn't support gay marriage then the terrorists win. It's not continuous logic.

You've spent the last week talking about the tax code on this thread, perhaps hoping to "bond". Nobody wants to bond with a gay. They know where that ALWAYS goes.

You're not going to provide continuity of reason. You're going to stick with sound bites and name calling.

USE IT! You WILL USE IT!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4299
Jun 26, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm refering to the continuity of the strategy, not the biology.
DO NOT attempt to speak for me. But, if you want to present a counter argument, feel free to do so. So far, no gay rights supporter is even slightly willing to discuss the possibility that their obsession is a mental disorder, a minor one, but a disorder none the less, and certainly NOT any kind of Libertarian ideal that all citizens need to support as if all reason were based on it.
.....!
No mainstream medical organizations believes that being gay is any kind of disorder - it's simply a variation. It's not learned, not harmful in any way, and not catching. Doesn't harm the gay person in any way, and doesn't harm society.

Kind of a weird "disorder", there.

And why in the world would it be any more of an "obsession" than being heterosexual? Sex makes up a very tiny portion of most of our lives. However, who we marry makes a much larger difference.

If you want a discussion, you need to at least start with the facts.

And, really, if you truly believe that someone else's natural and harmless sexual orientation is a disorder, then why in the world would you promote NOT allowing them the same basic civil and human rights you enjoy, based only on that?

Do you believe that no human with any "disorder" should ever be able to marry someone they love, because you believe that society should persecute them?

Wouldn't that be a large percentage of the population?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4300
Jun 26, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The continuity of of biological strategy is something that you'll completely deny no matter the overwhelming evolutionary logic of it.
But what does this idea of yours have to do with civil marriage law?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4301
Jun 26, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
......
You've spent the last week talking about the tax code on this thread, perhaps hoping to "bond". Nobody wants to bond with a gay. They know where that ALWAYS goes.
.!
You aren't making much sense here, since the tax code is deeply entwined in marriage law - for ALL married couples. Of course it's on topic.

And your odd idea that straight people don't "bond" with gay folks is downright silly.

We have straight parents, siblings, relatives, and friends - people who know us and love us dearly. We have straight co-workers, neighbors, and fellow church-goers. The majority of Americans want us to be able to legally marry.

Do you live in a cave somewhere?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4302
Jun 26, 2013
 
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
there is a lot of evidence that dinosaurs, including T. Rex are the ancestors of modern birds.
For one thing, like birds they are warm-blooded, not cold-blooded like reptiles. Also, like birds, they sported feathers. There's slso DNA & protein evidence.
See here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/...
That's mostly THEORY, not a fact. It's probably not completely accurate either. Only some dinosaurs had feathers as demonstrated by the fossil evidence, and the warm-blooded theories are mostly based on predator/prey ratios where more prey are required to support warm-blooded predators.

There's a sound logic to those numbers, but I'd propose that there are distinct differences between warm-blooded dinosaurs and birds, just as one would find distinct biochemistry and neural feedback differences between marsupials and placental mammals.

THAT is continuity of biology. Complex changes in biology do not happen like throwing a switch. Without understanding the biology, conjecturing on strategy has no meaning. Like biology, strategy is based on numerous factors and it is irresponsible to parse them down to individual traits without understanding the bigger picture.

Sorry, but this debate has yet to go beyond lowbrow bigotry against the more conservative elements of our culture. Like Evolution, it is not the parent species' responsibility to support the deviants in their random acts of experimenting with new strategies.

So, now you have an example of continuity of strategy. You have a debate point that our government exists as an extension of survival strategy and by that nature, has a greater obligation to stick with the conventional rather than endorse the unproven.

Let the individual take risks if they don't like the conventional, but don't expect the government to support their actions. The government's only obligation is to not interfere with your behavior as long as you don't interfere with the civilly and legally accepted actions of others.

By making the simple assumption that the government does not exist to engage in social engineering, the debate for gay marriage is completely absurd. The crime is that the government DOES support heterosexual marriage in a financially prejudicial way.

You're fighting the wrong fight. I know! You want to "get" those Christians! It's the wrong fight.....but you are going to USE IT! YOU WILL use it.. any.... any.... any..... EVERY WAY!!!

Politicians love their obsessive-compulsives. But you can't stop! You CAN NEVER STOP! USE IT!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4303
Jun 26, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But what does this idea of yours have to do with civil marriage law?
What does homosexuality have to do with civil marriage law?

YOU WILL go on denying the argument! YOU WILL!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4304
Jun 26, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No mainstream medical organizations believes that being gay is any kind of disorder - it's simply a variation. It's not learned, not harmful in any way, and not catching. Doesn't harm the gay person in any way, and doesn't harm society.
Kind of a weird "disorder", there.
And why in the world would it be any more of an "obsession" than being heterosexual? Sex makes up a very tiny portion of most of our lives. However, who we marry makes a much larger difference.
If you want a discussion, you need to at least start with the facts.
And, really, if you truly believe that someone else's natural and harmless sexual orientation is a disorder, then why in the world would you promote NOT allowing them the same basic civil and human rights you enjoy, based only on that?
Do you believe that no human with any "disorder" should ever be able to marry someone they love, because you believe that society should persecute them?
Wouldn't that be a large percentage of the population?
The AMA just announced that obesity is now a disease. I don't really care what the medical profession of this country thinks.
We pay more for medicine than any other country and rate somewhere around 50th place for the quality of service. They are a disgrace of greed and political prejudice, like most of America. This will only end when the aristocracy of America is broken, never to recover. You're just getting in the way.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4305
Jun 26, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't making much sense here, since the tax code is deeply entwined in marriage law - for ALL married couples. Of course it's on topic.
And your odd idea that straight people don't "bond" with gay folks is downright silly.
We have straight parents, siblings, relatives, and friends - people who know us and love us dearly. We have straight co-workers, neighbors, and fellow church-goers. The majority of Americans want us to be able to legally marry.
Do you live in a cave somewhere?
Yep! The tax code is prejudiced in favor of the married. I'll be glad to remove those prejudicial laws. The average breeder would rather ride that gravy train. They will have to be punished.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4306
Jun 26, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What does homosexuality have to do with civil marriage law?
YOU WILL go on denying the argument! YOU WILL!
The exact same thing that heterosexuality has to do with marriage law.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

And first, you need to make a logical argument. Can you do that? Can you prove that gay couples should not be allowed to legally marry? Show it harms them? Show it harms their kids? Show it harms other people? Show that marriage harms the elderly?

Give it a try.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4307
Jun 26, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The AMA just announced that obesity is now a disease. I don't really care what the medical profession of this country thinks.
We pay more for medicine than any other country and rate somewhere around 50th place for the quality of service. They are a disgrace of greed and political prejudice, like most of America. This will only end when the aristocracy of America is broken, never to recover. You're just getting in the way.
So, you base your ideas only on personal opinion, and not on any medical facts? Okaaaaay ...

Other taxpayers are getting in the way? How does that work?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4308
Jun 26, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! The tax code is prejudiced in favor of the married. I'll be glad to remove those prejudicial laws. The average breeder would rather ride that gravy train. They will have to be punished.
Odd post. Who is suggesting that any straight folks with kids be punished, other than you? All gay folks are saying is that the laws should not be directed at harming our families.

And doesn't society benefit when families are secure and kids protected?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4309
Jun 26, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't making much sense here, since the tax code is deeply entwined in marriage law - for ALL married couples. Of course it's on topic.
And your odd idea that straight people don't "bond" with gay folks is downright silly.
We have straight parents, siblings, relatives, and friends - people who know us and love us dearly. We have straight co-workers, neighbors, and fellow church-goers. The majority of Americans want us to be able to legally marry.
Do you live in a cave somewhere?
BTW - Since I really answered most of your questions before I even got to your posts, why don't you consider the possibility that it might be you who is living in a cave somewhere.

A more "conservative" individual would have already thought about all these things, understand the biological sciences, and certainly wouldn't just be calling gays "perverts", or bumping nozzles over the tax code.

A conservative would not be an impulsive hypocrite. The nature of Conservatism isn't just about doing everything the old way. The Republican Party preaches that simply because they exploit simple people's desire to find comfort in that which they are familiar with.

Now, assuming that you've been on the periphery of Liberalism, I'm sure that you have new ideas that you find to be of value to the community. Feel free to share them with us!.......or is this all about you?
The Troll Stopper

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4310
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>The exact same thing that heterosexuality has to do with marriage law.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

And first, you need to make a logical argument. Can you do that? Can you prove that gay couples should not be allowed to legally marry? Show it harms them? Show it harms their kids? Show it harms other people? Show that marriage harms the elderly?

Give it a try.
Can you prove that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry? Show it does not harm them? Show it does not harm their kids? Show it does not harm other people? Show that marriage does not harm the elderly?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4311
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The exact same thing that heterosexuality has to do with marriage law.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
And first, you need to make a logical argument. Can you do that? Can you prove that gay couples should not be allowed to legally marry? Show it harms them? Show it harms their kids? Show it harms other people? Show that marriage harms the elderly?
Give it a try.
You're not making ANY sense!

Why is it so hard for you to make sense?

Go ahead and get married! Just don't expect my government to endorse your ritual or your lifestyle.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4312
Jun 26, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you base your ideas only on personal opinion, and not on any medical facts? Okaaaaay ...
Other taxpayers are getting in the way? How does that work?
Nope! Not making ANY sense! What does the medical profession have to do with taxpayers?

BTW - Since when don't I have a right to an opinion? I have EVERY RIGHT to MY opinion and MY vote will reflect MY opinion. Too bad for you if you can't convince me to change my opinion.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4313
Jun 26, 2013
 
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry? Show it does not harm them? Show it does not harm their kids? Show it does not harm other people? Show that marriage does not harm the elderly?
We've already pointed out that this isn't about proving a negative. Gay rights fanatics don't listen. It's not worth wasting time on the distraction.

The point was made. The government's role is an extension of biological survival strategy, but only through a democratic process that protects the individual rights of its citizens.

Every yahoo out there talks about civil rights, but has no clue about how our government is supposed to work. I don't have time to teach them. I'm quite content to break the whole system and community that has failed anyway.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4314
Jun 26, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd post. Who is suggesting that any straight folks with kids be punished, other than you? All gay folks are saying is that the laws should not be directed at harming our families.
And doesn't society benefit when families are secure and kids protected?
No, actually I don't think society benefits when families are secure and kids protected.

Didn't Ben Franklin say something to that effect?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I know! "If you don't support Gay marriage then the terrorists win." Right?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4315
Jun 26, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
lides believes HRC's cover story, I believe Huffington Post since they published the 2008 Schedule B with IRS processing edits on the web.
Let the FBI investigate.
No, I believe you are an idiot, who has no idea what they are talking about.
"Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990 , including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

San Bruno Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sinful Movie has Visuals to Die For in San Fran... 9 hr Culture Auditor 1
CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 12 hr Pea solved 200,564
Manslaughter verdict in bizarre San Francisco s... 14 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 2
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 19 hr Donny B 7,922
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Tue matches lighters 15,961
'Robin Williams' should adorn rainbow tunnel: p... Mon Marvinfish 6
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Aug 24 Mono 4,996
•••

San Bruno News Video

•••
•••

San Bruno Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

San Bruno People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

San Bruno News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in San Bruno
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••