Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

Jun 11, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Contra Costa Times

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.

Comments
12,221 - 12,240 of 12,363 Comments Last updated May 30, 2014

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13177
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but it can, based on intent....Man, you are really f(_)cked up..no one is 'demanding a heterosexual couple bear children'...I certainly don't want YOU to have ANY! If anything you're the one harping that reproduction be a requirement for marriage, which is totally discriminatory and asinine.
Blonde,
An analogy cannot have an attitude. You clearly do.
You are the one that brought up that expectation of a demand for children if they are to be a factor in marriage. I used a simple analogy to show the stupidity of that expectation.
Apparently the SCOTUS is discriminatory and asinine in your view too, they consider marriage a critical relationship of society exactly because of children.
Snicker.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13178
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but it can, based on intent....Man, you are really f(_)cked up..no one is 'demanding a heterosexual couple bear children'...I certainly don't want YOU to have ANY! If anything you're the one harping that reproduction be a requirement for marriage, which is totally discriminatory and asinine.
The analogy also fails because it requires dividing humans into different types of humans. Fundamental rights are required for all humans, not just for specific types of humans, though some keep trying to repeat that mistake throughout history. Our government was intended to correct that tradition of injustice. So regardless of ability to reproduce, marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual.

The only major restrictions are age, informed consent, not close blood relative, or currently married. Gender is not a restriction, and requiring one of each serves no purpose beyond harming same sex couples.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13179
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Blonde,
An analogy cannot have an attitude. You clearly do.
You are the one that brought up that expectation of a demand for children if they are to be a factor in marriage. I used a simple analogy to show the stupidity of that expectation.
Apparently the SCOTUS is discriminatory and asinine in your view too, they consider marriage a critical relationship of society exactly because of children.
Snicker.
Go reread the posts moron..I never said such a thing.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13180
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The analogy also fails because it requires dividing humans into different types of humans. Fundamental rights are required for all humans, not just for specific types of humans, though some keep trying to repeat that mistake throughout history. Our government was intended to correct that tradition of injustice. So regardless of ability to reproduce, marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual.
The only major restrictions are age, informed consent, not close blood relative, or currently married. Gender is not a restriction, and requiring one of each serves no purpose beyond harming same sex couples.
Hardly, I simply acknowledged orientation. The trees were people, the types were orientation. Very simply for most people to understand.

Want to try again?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13181
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Go reread the posts moron..I never said such a thing.
Honey, you don't understand what anyone else says, why would we expect you to understand what you say?

Smirk.
Mother of Anne

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13182
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Now Anne, how many times must I remind you to stop screaming "bigot"?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13183
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Again, the only requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13184
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly, I simply acknowledged orientation. The trees were people, the types were orientation. Very simply for most people to understand.
Want to try again?
Smile.
Riiiiiiiight...

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13187
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, you don't understand what anyone else says, why would we expect you to understand what you say?
Smirk.
I understand perfectly and I don't need immature analogies to say what I mean.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13188
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a fagg@t?
Are you a real m@n?
love

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13190
Apr 18, 2013
 
friend gay only jakandharcity09855835575
love

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13191
Apr 18, 2013
 
jalandharcity gay call 09855835575
DJ JESSY FRESH

Mesa, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13192
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

i don't know why everybody is upset, i'm gay, i have my boyfriend on the side
i admit, i should have been honest about it
i just use the kids for money to support my honey
besides, thats all the kids are worth is money
there's nothing better then my honey bun
Anne Ominous

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13193
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Done Babbling wrote:
Again, we see attempts to ridicule, dehumanize, and demonize, remain the best tools for those who wish to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.
Again we irrevelevantly homobabble. Marriage is not a right.
Anne Ominous

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13194
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there is a compelling reason, medical..
What medical reason is there to prohibit me from marrying my parent? Even if there was one, why should it prohibit me?
Anne Ominous

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13195
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Done Babbling wrote:
A simplistic view of genetics leads some to look for a single gene that functions as an either/or trigger, or "on/off" switch. This view fails to consider the interplay of various genes,
Translation: you can't prove any genetic link, so you dance around it by making up theories.
While we haven't yet found a heterosexual gene, most heterosexuals would agree their sexual orientation is innate.
Orientation is not innate.

"The elevated rate of sexual orientation sameness in genetic twins, indicates there is a genetic influence, though not one "on/off" gene."

No, the nearly identical external stimuli plus the closeness of the twin bond accounts for it.
Investigation into hormonal and bio-chemical influences continues, and influences have been indicated.
But the problem with the biological argument for sexual orientation is, no matter which theory you accept, someone will want to use it as an excuse to deny equal treatment, as we have seen on this thread. If it is genetic, they will argue it is a defect, ignoring that we don't deny equal rights based on genetic defects or variations.
And if using the argument there is no genetic influence, the excuse then becomes sexual orientation is a choice and gay people could choose to be straight, and therefore choice should not be protected, ignoring the fact we protect equal rights based on choice of religious beliefs or no belief.
So whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, it fails as an excuse to deny equal treatment under the law.
"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s 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."
irrelevant homobabble
Anne Ominous

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13196
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 (1),(4),(5)(1973) violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of Wisconsin to seek a court order prior to receiving a marriage license. In order to receive such a court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in arrears on his or her child support, and the court had to believe that the child(ren) would not become dependent on the State.[

Coefficient of relevance to homosexual marriage, zero. Coefficient of relevance to creating a new civil right, zero.
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two prison regulations.

Coefficient of relevance to homosexual marriage, zero. Coefficient of relevance to creating a new civil right, zero.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.<snip>
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state regulations regarding abortion were challenged.

Coefficient of relevance to homosexual marriage, zero. Coefficient of relevance to creating a new civil right, zero.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),[1] is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. In the 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal

Coefficient of relevance to homosexual marriage, zero. Coefficient of relevance to creating a new civil right, zero.

Next?
Anne Ominous

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13197
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
the more I read the bigotry
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Anne Ominous

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13198
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bigoted analogy bears no fruit...Smirk
morons with no argument scream "bigot"

<grin>
Anne Ominous

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13199
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Done Babbling wrote:
<quoted text>
The analogy also fails because it requires dividing humans into different types of humans. Fundamental rights are required for all humans, not just for specific types of humans, though some keep trying to repeat that mistake throughout history. Our government was intended to correct that tradition of injustice. So regardless of ability to reproduce, marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual.
marriage is not a right.
The only major restrictions are age, informed consent, not close blood relative, or currently married. Gender is not a restriction, and requiring one of each serves no purpose beyond harming same sex couples.
The only major restrictions are what the law says they are. "gender" most certainly is a restriction. If you don't think so then go and try to get a marriage license in North Carolina. Get back to us with how you made out.

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.

•••