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 The standard argument from moral disapproval was revoked by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#195 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Who can overturn the CSSC?
the SCOTUS?
If the people vote to not recognize, they will have that right...
you are "de minimis".
look that up.
SCOTUS could if Strauss vs Horton had been appealed to them, but it wasn't and it ISN'T likely to be done now!!!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#196 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
simple. I would want you to accept that our laws have always given rights in marriage based upon its connection to procreation...
And admit that you are proposing a CHANGE to marriage...
and that this change WOULD have impacts (potentially very negative ones) and marriage is beyond you and your agenda...
in other words, I just want the court to get you to accept REALITY!
I know, but I can dream!
The day is young. You may be in for a surprise later today. If not, then we will deal.

If me marrying and being faithful to a same sex spouse will somehow damage your marriage, then your marriage wasn't Shiite to begin with.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#200 Mar 26, 2013
Holy Yolk wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Uve, such a retarded lil poofter that cannot see the writhing on the wall and is too caught up in his Jewlery petty fetty.
You're a pig! A stupid pig!
http://www.darkmoon.me/2011/america-vanquishe...
Well POS, I'm not the bigoted coward here that can't use the same name twice and spouting hate speech. Next time, at least use f(_)cking spell check so YOU'LL (know how to use that in a sentence?) look less of an idiot. BTW Good to know I've p*ssed you off that YOU'RE losing it...now f(_)ck off..again!
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#203 Mar 26, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, Even thought it's pointless to try and tell you anything, but Sexual Identity is not a cult. AND before you start your BS it's not a choice either.
I agree...
But your AGENDA is a cult.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#204 Mar 26, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>The day is young. You may be in for a surprise later today. If not, then we will deal.
"Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world."

are you surprised?
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>
If me marrying and being faithful to a same sex spouse will somehow damage your marriage, then your marriage wasn't Shiite to begin with.
sour grapes. The concern is for an institution of society...its not all about me, one of us gets that...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#205 Mar 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess SCOTUS could, but then they would be violating the State's right to recognize the existing marriages.....!
Do you mean the right of the state whose people voted exactly on the issue of not recognizing it and decided they didn't want to?

think it through dude...

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#207 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
"Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world."
are you surprised?
<quoted text>
sour grapes. The concern is for an institution of society...its not all about me, one of us gets that...
So, your marriage IS in trouble, got it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#209 Mar 26, 2013
Jane dear, you may want to stock up at the liquor store for what's about to happen with these two cases. The state's amendments, all toast. This may or may not come with a right to marry, but in overturning Section 2 of DOMA, the Court tees up an equal protection argument that none of them could survive. Every state now has same sex couples who were legally married elsewhere and the federal government is going to have to recognize that. This means start waving bye bye to every state amendment (except Hawaii's), because states don't have the right/authority/power to deny federal recognition. Writing the amendments to only exclude same sex marriages and not writing them to deny recognition to ANY marriage performed elsewhere that wouldn't have been permitted is their own downfall. They are going to have to strike them down or the result of striking down Section 2 of DOMA is a new flood of suits. Thank you Romer v Evans.

As to whether we are going to a decision that we can thank Loving v Virginia for, while I'd like to hope so, that's more wishful thinking. I really doubt that the right to be married is going to come with the right to marry, not yet anyways. I doubt that this will come with the mandate that all states allow in state marriages between same sex couples, that step is further down the road. We're essentially all about to become our own first cousins when it comes to marrying someone of the same sex. if you live in a state that allows it, go ahead, if you don't find another, until you can get the LAW changed to permit it, but regardless of where you marry, as long as it was legal when entered into, the marriage is valid anywhere.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#210 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the right of the state whose people voted exactly on the issue of not recognizing it and decided they didn't want to?
think it through dude...
Not a dude, and it doesn't matter what the people voted on.....the fact remains that the CSSC ruled in the Strauss vs Horton ruling in May of 2009 that the legally married 18,000 Same-Sex Couples would remain legally married and those marriage would be valid, recognize and legal regardless of the wording in Prop 8!!!

Interesting how Cooper was grilled on the responsible procreative argument.....and none of the Justices bought it!!!

The Justices will probably make 1 of 4 possible rulings with regard to Prop 8 and one that appears more likely.....is dismissing the appeal all together.....which would leave the 9th's ruling intact!!!
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#211 Mar 26, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>So, your marriage IS in trouble, got it.
are you guys so insecure that you would think this comment of yours matters in reality?

My wife and I have something that you wish you had.
literally.
so I expect your sour grapes.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#212 Mar 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Jane dear, you may want to stock up at the liquor store for what's about to happen with these two cases. The state's amendments, all toast. This may or may not come with a right to marry, but in overturning Section 2 of DOMA, the Court tees up an equal protection argument that none of them could survive. Every state now has same sex couples who were legally married elsewhere and the federal government is going to have to recognize that. This means start waving bye bye to every state amendment (except Hawaii's), because states don't have the right/authority/power to deny federal recognition. Writing the amendments to only exclude same sex marriages and not writing them to deny recognition to ANY marriage performed elsewhere that wouldn't have been permitted is their own downfall. They are going to have to strike them down or the result of striking down Section 2 of DOMA is a new flood of suits. Thank you Romer v Evans.
As to whether we are going to a decision that we can thank Loving v Virginia for, while I'd like to hope so, that's more wishful thinking. I really doubt that the right to be married is going to come with the right to marry, not yet anyways. I doubt that this will come with the mandate that all states allow in state marriages between same sex couples, that step is further down the road. We're essentially all about to become our own first cousins when it comes to marrying someone of the same sex. if you live in a state that allows it, go ahead, if you don't find another, until you can get the LAW changed to permit it, but regardless of where you marry, as long as it was legal when entered into, the marriage is valid anywhere.
you should read the cases more and your sites less.

But we will soon have the decisions...
I can barely wait...
can you?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#213 Mar 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a dude, and it doesn't matter what the people voted on.....the fact remains that the CSSC ruled in the Strauss vs Horton ruling in May of 2009 that the legally married 18,000 Same-Sex Couples would remain legally married and those marriage would be valid, recognize and legal regardless of the wording in Prop 8!!!
Interesting how Cooper was grilled on the responsible procreative argument.....and none of the Justices bought it!!!
The Justices will probably make 1 of 4 possible rulings with regard to Prop 8 and one that appears more likely.....is dismissing the appeal all together.....which would leave the 9th's ruling intact!!!
true that may happen.

but It doesn't quite add up since they could have not accepted the case with the same result.
I take Kennedy today as trying to provide cover for what he knows he has to do...
he is begging us not to make him...
"None of the justices" being the four liberal justices, right?
what did Roberts' ask about changing the definition of marriage? Where do you think the question about when gay marriage "became" a right was going?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#214 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
true that may happen.
but It doesn't quite add up since they could have not accepted the case with the same result.
I take Kennedy today as trying to provide cover for what he knows he has to do...
he is begging us not to make him...
"None of the justices" being the four liberal justices, right?
what did Roberts' ask about changing the definition of marriage? Where do you think the question about when gay marriage "became" a right was going?
However, it does appear that it was the Conservative Justices who wanted to hear the case in order to overturn the Ruling from the 9th......but Justice Kennedy doesn't believe the Court should have taken it and could very well dismiss it and that is more likely than not to happen......but from hearing the arguments and reading the transcripts.......it doesn't look good for Prop 8 to stand!!!

I understand exactly where the question from Justice Scalia was coming from.......and he got his butt handed back to him by Olson.......where had it ever been stated that interracial couples couldn't marry prior to the Loving ruling? So, see Justice Scalia just wanted to be a nasty person.....but I think he knew the answer to the question before he decided to go there!!!

Yea, the Chief Justice made a comment about what he thought marriage was about......this coming from a man who has NO BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN of his own, should his marriage be invalidated?

Also Justice Kagan went after Cooper about that procreative responsibility with regards to the age of couples!!!

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#215 Mar 26, 2013
I Told You So wrote:
<quoted text>
Does syphilis run in the family, why else would your mother give you a 3 letter name with 2 vowels. I think she gave up on you early.
Mary please...grow up

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#216 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree...
But your AGENDA is a cult.
Well maybe, if striving for equal rights is an agenda.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#217 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
are you guys so insecure that you would think this comment of yours matters in reality?
My wife and I have something that you wish you had.
literally.
so I expect your sour grapes.
Are YOU so insecure that the thought of two men, or two women, sharing a bed will RUIN your love life?

You could not be happier or more content than my hubby and I are. We are into our 19th year and plan on running the entire race together. I just hope we both get that long again. No spring chickens here, so it is iffy, but I am happy to get as long as we can.

BTW, at 6Pm this evening, we are am walking over to the Palm Springs City Hall, courthouse area, to enjoy the big rally with newly sworn in Congressman Raul Ruiz as speaker.

Last time there was one of these rallies some old biddy came in with styrofoam cross and clumsily dropped it and it got all over the internet as if she was beaten.

Look for me on the news. I am very tall, shaved head, and will be wearing a brown baseball cap with the EQUAL symbol on it.
gubbub

Pittsburgh, PA

#219 Mar 26, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ………
Excuses are Reason

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#220 Mar 26, 2013
Fred wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you mad, queer?
It seems to me you are really enjoying all the attention you are getting from gay people on this post. I think you're gay and in the closet.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#221 Mar 26, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I always guessed you don't understand what is substantive...thanks for proving it.
just stick to snark and playing with the icons kid.
You are a BORE.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#223 Mar 26, 2013
Metzitzah B peh wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept beastiality as an acceptable practice?
Bestiality has NOTHING to do with the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples.........and approximately 13-20 states have no laws concerning this despicable behavior!!!

And when idiots like yourself starting making these types of comments......you've already lost!!!

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 11 min Frankie Rizzo 26,530
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 23 min Wondering 48
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 55 min Tre H 14,211
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr lado 57,976
News Gay teacher fired by South Coast Baptist Colleg... 3 hr Wondering 6
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 4 hr Sammi 206
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 4 hr Trump is a joke 28
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 112
More from around the web