The Sexual Fetish of Gay Marriage Opp...

The Sexual Fetish of Gay Marriage Opponents

There are 263 comments on the www.slate.com story from Mar 22, 2013, titled The Sexual Fetish of Gay Marriage Opponents. In it, www.slate.com reports that:

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, opponents of same-sex marriage have scrambled to answer the central question: What is the government’s rational interest in preventing gays from marrying? The standard argument from moral disapproval was revoked by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. The argument that gay marriages undermine the family has been debunked by a decade of same-sex marriage in several countries. So, as Proposition 8 and DOMA wound their way through the courts, gay marriage opponents lit upon a more durable argument, seemingly grounded in science rather than animus or religion. Their case, presented most comprehensively by Princeton professor Robert P. George, is that only sex acts with a “dynamism toward reproduction” — that is, penile to vaginal intercourse — create true marriages and lead to legitimate child-rearing. Same-sex marriages, by this theory, are not “real” marriages, because they do not involve “organic bodily union.”

Editor's note: so I guess all infertile heterosexuals are also denied legal marriage then?

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.slate.com.

Housatonic River

Cummington, MA

#290 Mar 28, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a perfect example of the real problem of homophobia..How many names have you used on here POS coward? Maybe you should go back watching TV for the meaning of your sorry a$$ life.
You're the perfect example of the real problem of heterophobia. How many names have you used here pos coward? Maybe you should go back to watching gaybeastiality.com for the meaning of your sorry 'ass' life.

Whether I use one name or a thousand has little relevance you benevolant cow patty.

squaw peak
Housatonic River

Cummington, MA

#291 Mar 28, 2013
In a world where fathers were fathers and grandfathers were grandfathers. Of virtues, honor, and respect, this nation has become an excessive, corporate, and decadent nightmare.

Gay parenting? Good one satan.
To hell with you all.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#292 Mar 28, 2013
Housatonic River wrote:
In a world where fathers were fathers and grandfathers were grandfathers. Of virtues, honor, and respect, this nation has become an excessive, corporate, and decadent nightmare.
Gay parenting? Good one satan.
To hell with you all.
Please do us all a favour and move to the Middle East. I'm sure the religious police would be happy to have you.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must cause you no end of nightmares.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#293 Mar 28, 2013
Housatonic River wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the perfect example of the real problem of heterophobia. How many names have you used here pos coward? Maybe you should go back to watching gaybeastiality.com for the meaning of your sorry 'ass' life.
Whether I use one name or a thousand has little relevance you benevolant cow patty.
squaw peak
Well asstroll, I only use one and I registered it. You really think we don't know who you are? Only a moron uses several different names to agree with himself. It does make a difference using all those names because it only shows you're a f(_)cking loser that nobody agrees with..so be it
Housatonic River

Cummington, MA

#294 Mar 28, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do us all a favour and move to the Middle East. I'm sure the religious police would be happy to have you.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights must cause you no end of nightmares.
Haven't you heard? The Middle East is moving here with similar philosophy of Christains. Besides, the constitution was usurped the very minute the federal reserve act was enacted. About the same time the 'tariff act was enacted.
Time to purge the turds.
Housatonic River

Cummington, MA

#295 Mar 28, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
You really think we don't know who you are?
First of all.
Second of all. I don't give a damn if you did.
Thirdly!
I know for a fact you don't know who I am, so bite me!
Turtle turd lover.

There will come a day
Housatonic River

Cummington, MA

#296 Mar 28, 2013
Slowly corrupting and destroying the American family structure.
Judas is the devil.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#297 Mar 28, 2013
Housatonic River wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all.
Second of all. I don't give a damn if you did.
Thirdly!
I know for a fact you don't know who I am, so bite me!
Turtle turd lover.
There will come a day
LOL Oh but you do care! Yes, there will be a day when Bigoted BS and hate speech from a hypocritical cowardly bible-thumping c(_)ntlicker like you, is no longer tolerated.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#299 Mar 28, 2013
Housatonic River wrote:
Slowly corrupting and destroying the American family structure.
Judas is the devil.
No, Judas was the ultimate victim, used by God to push forward His plan for the sacrifice of Jesus.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#300 Mar 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Another ad hominem and no real argument. Feel free to keep proving that you are a bigoted fool. You are clearly incapable of rticulating an intelligent arguement against equal protection as required by the 14th amendment.
If you really are a lawyer, which I find doubtful, I feel sorry for your clients. I wouldn't retain you to argue against a parking ticket.
I noticed you didn't answer the question:

did you see the quote from oral arguments relying on that very case?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#304 Mar 29, 2013
Young Teen Love wrote:
Lides, what is your 'opinion' and do you find that men in their 40's having affairs with sophomore high school girls as being appropriate behavior?
My opinion, which has been freely expressed on this thread and others is that our nation was founded upon the notion of equality (except for slaves, and after far too long we corrected even that). Read the opening of the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." US Declaration of Independence
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1

Regarding your question, it has no relevance to the topic at hand, and the main concern of the state is the crime of statutory rape. Do feel free to offer a big boy argument.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#305 Mar 29, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
I noticed you didn't answer the question:
did you see the quote from oral arguments relying on that very case?
Yes, and I see that you are still incapable of defending that inept decision.

I find it funny that you wish to hang your hat upon a case that has since been overturned by an act of the legislature. The only reason it was not overturned upon appeal is that there is no reason to appeal a court decision that is no longer active. In fact, it would be impossible, because the necessary damages no longer exist to give one standing to bring the case.

You certainly are not the brightest bulb in the box.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#306 Mar 29, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Gee..... was that supposed to be sarcasm?
I thought I already explained to you what sarcasm was...
didn't take, eh?

color me not surprised...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#307 Mar 29, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
Gee..... was that supposed to be sarcasm?
I thought it introspection.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#308 Mar 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and I see that you are still incapable of defending that inept decision.
I find it funny that you wish to hang your hat upon a case that has since been overturned by an act of the legislature. The only reason it was not overturned upon appeal is that there is no reason to appeal a court decision that is no longer active. In fact, it would be impossible, because the necessary damages no longer exist to give one standing to bring the case.
You certainly are not the brightest bulb in the box.
hey pete...

I noticed you didn't answer AGAIN about the use of the NY high court decision in oral arguments...

hey they explained ratuional basi, and yup, you are still worng on that too..

say, did they talk about baker?

irrelevant?
guess not.

say, did they talk about POLYGAMY?

wow, were you right about ANYTHING?
(FYI, no, you weren't)

Back to pete and repeat for you and without me...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#310 Mar 29, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
hey pete...
I noticed you didn't answer AGAIN about the use of the NY high court decision in oral arguments...
hey they explained ratuional basi, and yup, you are still worng on that too..
say, did they talk about baker?
irrelevant?
guess not.
say, did they talk about POLYGAMY?
wow, were you right about ANYTHING?
(FYI, no, you weren't)
Back to pete and repeat for you and without me...
Why is it that you can't defend a single argument you make, and you base your arguments entirely upon decision that have been superseded, or were decided 40 years ago at a time when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder and dismissed by the US Supreme Court for want of a substantial federal question?

Perhaps because you lack the intelligence to offer a valid argument? Don't worry, the defenders of Prop 8 and the DOMA have the same problem you do, namely they lack an argument with a rational basis.

Tell me, if the US Supreme Court delivers a decision which strikes down the DOMA, will you have the decency to skulk off and hide?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#312 Mar 29, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
lol. First he bitches at me when I make a sarcastic comment, and then he writes criticizing someone else:'your not to bright".... was he being sarcastic or just stupid?
Just stupid. This is why they so regularly post clip quotes of arguments and decisions with no rational thought or defense of those positions. They seem to suffer from the delusion that US Supreme Court decisions are immutable, but that simply isn't the case. Times change, new cases are filed, and old decisions can be thrown onto the scrapheap of obsolescence.

It appears our friend lacks the capacity to offer even so much as a rational reason why same sex couples should be denied equal protection of the law. If they actually had a legal leg to stand upon, they would be able to offer such a basic level of proof for their position.
Metzitzah b peh

Cummington, MA

#313 Mar 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Lides, what is your 'opinion' and do you find that men in their 40's having affairs with sophomore high school girls as being appropriate behavior?

P.S. The constitution was usurped on December 23, 1913.
Judas is the devil.

Brother Nathanael Kapner says hello. Obama the ass puppet. Just like the rest of them.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#314 Mar 29, 2013
Metzitzah b peh wrote:
P.S. The constitution was usurped on December 23, 1913.
Judas is the devil.
There is no fool like a paranoid fool.
Metzitzah b peh

Cummington, MA

#315 Mar 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no fool like a paranoid fool.
The only paranoia goin on in the world is the rhetoric and injustices to 'assassinate' or dismantle other nations as this nation has done for Judas. The fools are those unaware of the obvious, the bigger fools are those here that continue to allow this to go on, but those days are coming to an end.

George Bush, the scapegoat to further blind the sheep.
If ever there is a hell Lides.
Expel and isolate.

Putin for President.

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.

Parenting Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kids will ruin your life (Jun '10) Aug 11 pull head out of ass 202
News Spanking a child could lead to negative consequ... Aug 8 non homo pheobie 3
News What do you Think? Restaurant Says no Kids Allowed (Jul '11) Aug 8 KingH13 24
News Raising a vegan baby: Parents say abuse cases g... (Oct '16) Aug 2 Wee 2
News Feminist: I Know I Shouldn't Generalize, But Me... Aug 1 TerriB1 1
News Find out you can sign up to support group to he... Jul 26 who do u call 1
News Gay Israeli Celebs Decry Same-Sex Adoption Ban Jul '17 Wrong Move 5
More from around the web