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

#13123 Feb 19, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Fortunately, the courts recognize marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed 14 times by the supreme court.
That is not true.

What is true, is that gay twirl of truth only validates the weakness and immorality of your position.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13124 Feb 19, 2013
The inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex prove the behavior is wrong.

Epi-marker mistakes prove homosexuality is a defect.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, proving gay couples are the oxymoron of marriage.

Anal sex is the key identifying factor of gays. It is the most intimate act between gays. You know I'm talking about the essence of homosexuality when I bring up anal sex.

As to it' inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature, I simply post a medical site that labels it a violation of design, THE MOST DANGEROUS SEXUAL ACT OF ALL, and REQUIRING an anal condom and lubrication to even begin to bring it into a risky behavior! You never mention the issue of playing in fecal matter, because even denial has a hard time getting past that. Moreover, you prove the demeaning nature by your forklift backing up when anyone addresses the issue.

Instead you throw out the gay twirl mantra,'everybody does it', as if that makes it okay. Childish reasoning at the most.

All of this denies the obvious. If the anus had evolved for intercourse, it would be a vagina. Instead, it ends up being a default hole because gays have no option for a vagina.

As to epi-marker mistakes, thank you for a the reference to study.

Your defense however is silly. Nature does have it's reasons, and the study is an example of humans understanding them.

In this case, epi-marker 'notes' are accidentally left on the genetic code of opposite gender children of a parent. They have even identified situations where the accident most often occurs.

It is quickly becoming obvious that reality will require GLBT's to face the fact that they are in the ranks of the genetically handicapped. I would suggest you will find far less opposition developing rights by operating from a basis of reality, that historically people know by intuition, rather than demanding that people accept your denial.

Think about it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13125 Feb 19, 2013
On what basis do we restrict fundamental civil rights?

Very few, depending on the right.

Marriage is restricted on the basis of age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gender remains a restriction in some states and the federal government, though when challenged that restriction is falling as it provides no legitimate governmental interest.

While sexual orientation is not a genetic defect, even if it were, we do not restrict the right of marriage based on genetic defects.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate restriction. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13126 Feb 19, 2013
Both the 5th and 14th amendments require equal treatment for all persons under the law. The Golden Rule is not just a promise of the founding documents, it is required by the constitution. As procreation is not a legal requirement, no one has presented a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117)

Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118)

"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."

"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#13127 Feb 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true.
What is true, is that gay twirl of truth only validates the weakness and immorality of your position.
Smile.
sit and spin, kimare

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13128 Feb 19, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
sit and spin, kimare
And still no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution. Just demeaning personal attacks, irrational analogies, and dehumanizing pejorative terminology. Fortunately, the courts are seeing through such irrational promotions of personal prejudice.

"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals."
(Constitutional attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies)

The court has never required procreation for marriage, and has specifically ruled neither procreation nor the ability to even have sex is required for marriage to remain a fundamental right.(Turner v Salley)
Connie Linguiss

Bedford, MA

#13129 Mar 2, 2013
Gay people should not be allowed to marry. That is destroying the tradition of man and woman. Stop crying already and accept it.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13130 Mar 2, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
On what basis do we restrict fundamental civil rights?/QUOTE]

Once again your argument fails, Babs, because marriage is not a civil right.

[QUOTE]While sexual orientation is not a genetic defect
You finally got one right. It is not genetic - period.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage
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.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13131 Mar 2, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
Both the 5th and 14th amendments require equal treatment for all persons under the law. The Golden Rule is not just a promise of the founding documents, it is required by the constitution. As procreation is not a legal requirement, no one has presented a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.
"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117)
Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118)
"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
blah blah blah

Marriage is not a right, and all the homobabble in the world won't change that simple fact.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13132 Mar 2, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
<quoted text>
And still no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.
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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13133 Mar 2, 2013
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

#13136 Mar 2, 2013
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

#13137 Mar 2, 2013
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

#13138 Mar 2, 2013
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

Berkshire, NY

#13139 Mar 2, 2013
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

Berkshire, NY

#13140 Mar 2, 2013
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

#13141 Mar 3, 2013
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

#13143 Mar 3, 2013
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

#13144 Mar 3, 2013
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

Location hidden

#13145 Mar 3, 2013
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 ....

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.

San Elizario Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Beware of cosmetic surgery practitioners who ar... (Feb '09) 23 min maklyn81 50
Chinese Farts 12 hr Soy farts 16
Smell Something Sniff Something 12 hr Stanky farts 23
Armed Forces Day (May '13) 12 hr Fart Limbs 28
Any info on Horizon City out there??? (Mar '06) 12 hr Fart News 256
Not the same ADHS that I knew 22 hr Alumni 2
New to El Paso Need FARTS (Nov '17) Tue Algegat Fart 69

San Elizario Jobs

Personal Finance

San Elizario Mortgages