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 The standard argument from moral disapproval was revoked by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.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

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#224 Mar 26, 2013
It should be START....not starting!!!

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#226 Mar 26, 2013
Pornography wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. And it has a lot to do with the 'financerrs' behind the scenes of so called ss marriage. Could they be the same people that promote beastiality out n Follyhood?
Beastiality, incest, pedophilia, polygamy, adultery, homosexuality, necrophilia, all to varying degress are perversions, vice, and excess. Giving into tendencies of compulsive behavior. Homosexuality and the bad follyhood porn fairy tale involving children. And dogs. That's what you are.
Hollywood doesn't promote bestiality idiot!!!

Sorry, maybe you have those fantasies about doing dead people and animals.....but I don't.....yuck!!!

Being Gay or Lesbian has NOTHING to do with incest, pedophilia, adultery, bestiality or anything you claim it does......and personally I don't care if one wants a relationship with multiple people......if they can handle it and it's consensual.......not my business......that's between them and the state!!!
Beauty Queen

London, UK

#228 Mar 27, 2013
Pornography wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Internet troll ...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#229 Mar 27, 2013
Pornography wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. And it has a lot to do with the 'financerrs' behind the scenes of so called ss marriage. Could they be the same people that promote beastiality out n Follyhood?
Beastiality, incest, pedophilia, polygamy, adultery, homosexuality, necrophilia, all to varying degress are perversions, vice, and excess......
Have you noticed that these things populate YOUR mind, but no one else's?

That would be the first step in getting some help.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#230 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
so for today, i am not a lawyer?
Nope. As always, you remain a troll, who frequently changes their user-name, and can't seem to muster the ability to obtain a registered user account.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#231 Mar 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Hollywood doesn't promote bestiality idiot!!!
Sorry, maybe you have those fantasies about doing dead people and animals.....but I don't.....yuck!!!
Being Gay or Lesbian has NOTHING to do with incest, pedophilia, adultery, bestiality or anything you claim it does......and personally I don't care if one wants a relationship with multiple people......if they can handle it and it's consensual.......not my business......that's between them and the state!!!
He's a sick old piece of flaccid white trash that has a computer, you'll never get through to him. Even if you did, he'd just change his name and deny it, totally on here for attention, shock value and bigotry. Don't bother with him, or as they say, don't feed the troll...peace
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#232 Mar 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

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!!!
yup:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How do we know -- how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? That's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. Maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right."

MR. OLSON: But you have said that marriage is a fundamental right with respect to procreation and at the same level getting married, privacy -- you said that in the Zablocki case, you said that in the Lawrence 45 &#65532;case, and you said it in other cases, the Skinner case, for example. Marriage is put on a pro--- equal footing with procreational aspects.

"And you can play with that metaphor," Kennedy said, continuing that in that consideration, "There's a wonderful destination" or "a cliff."

did justice Sotomayor drop the POLYGAMY argument?

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
MR. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"

yup, the justice just hit you with the slippery slope...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#233 Mar 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. As always, you remain a troll, who frequently changes their user-name, and can't seem to muster the ability to obtain a registered user account.
guess what your post reeks of? trollness...

hey buddy, did you see this:

"The issues, the constitutional issues that have been presented to the Court, are not of first impression here. In Baker v. Nelson, this Court unanimously dismissed for want of a substantial Federal question."

And &#65532;simply make the observation that it seems implausible in the extreme, frankly, for nine justices to have -- to have seen no substantial Federal question if it is true, as the Respondents maintain, that the traditional definition of marriage insofar as -- insofar as it does not include same-sex couples, insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and can only be explained, can only be explained, as a result of anti-gay malice and a bare desire to harm.

or this?
We don't prescribe law for the future. We -- we decide what the law is. I'm curious, when -- when did -- when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes -- some time after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial Federal question? When -- when -- when did the law become this?

so Baker was discussed....as PRECEDENT...
curious?

now rational basis review:
"R. Cooper identified with respect to the effects on children, if it came up ina different case with a different record, after all here, this case was litigated by Petitioners on the theory that rational basis applied and they didn't need to show anything, and so they didn't try to show anything."

so i cite comments by the justices, and what do you have?
I bet you cite to justice dumbass pete or was it repeat?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#234 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
guess what your post reeks of? trollness...
hey buddy, did you see this:
"The issues, the constitutional issues that have been presented to the Court, are not of first impression here. In Baker v. Nelson, this Court unanimously dismissed for want of a substantial Federal question."
And &#65532;simply make the observation that it seems implausible in the extreme, frankly, for nine justices to have -- to have seen no substantial Federal question if it is true, as the Respondents maintain, that the traditional definition of marriage insofar as -- insofar as it does not include same-sex couples, insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and can only be explained, can only be explained, as a result of anti-gay malice and a bare desire to harm.
or this?
We don't prescribe law for the future. We -- we decide what the law is. I'm curious, when -- when did -- when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes -- some time after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial Federal question? When -- when -- when did the law become this?
so Baker was discussed....as PRECEDENT...
curious?
now rational basis review:
"R. Cooper identified with respect to the effects on children, if it came up ina different case with a different record, after all here, this case was litigated by Petitioners on the theory that rational basis applied and they didn't need to show anything, and so they didn't try to show anything."
so i cite comments by the justices, and what do you have?
I bet you cite to justice dumbass pete or was it repeat?
If you wish to appear as dumb as Scalia, that is your right. An intelligent person could see that such a barrier become unconstitutional with the 14th Amendment. If you had a valid argument, which you do not, then you could offer a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Not onyl have you not done so, you have failed to indicate any damage that allowing such unions does to ANYONE.

Regarding polygamy, the answer is simple. Polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people.

But you keep toting out those rust old arguments. The US Supreme Court may offer them to offer concrete answers in their decision. The blogisphere bigots, yourself included, offer them because they have no rational argument for their position.

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#235 Mar 27, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a sick old piece of flaccid white trash that has a computer, you'll never get through to him. Even if you did, he'd just change his name and deny it, totally on here for attention, shock value and bigotry. Don't bother with him, or as they say, don't feed the troll...peace
I understand......and will avoid feeding the trolls......lol!!!

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#236 Mar 27, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yup:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How do we know -- how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? That's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. Maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right."
MR. OLSON: But you have said that marriage is a fundamental right with respect to procreation and at the same level getting married, privacy -- you said that in the Zablocki case, you said that in the Lawrence 45 &#65532;case, and you said it in other cases, the Skinner case, for example. Marriage is put on a pro--- equal footing with procreational aspects.
"And you can play with that metaphor," Kennedy said, continuing that in that consideration, "There's a wonderful destination" or "a cliff."
did justice Sotomayor drop the POLYGAMY argument?
"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
MR. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"
yup, the justice just hit you with the slippery slope...
Again, just a question from the Chief Justice speculating about the history of marriage and procreation......coming from a man who has NO BIOLOGICAL children of his own......so, should his own marriage be invalidated? I think not and that's the whole point......even Justice Kagan made an issue about marriage being only or mostly about procreation when she mentioned the age of the participates!!!

Again, you want to focus on only that which you believe is the sole purpose of marriage......but in many many cases, straight couples aren't always getting married to have children!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#237 Mar 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, just a question from the Chief Justice speculating about the history of marriage and procreation......coming from a man who has NO BIOLOGICAL children of his own......so, should his own marriage be invalidated? I think not and that's the whole point......even Justice Kagan made an issue about marriage being only or mostly about procreation when she mentioned the age of the participates!!!
Again, you want to focus on only that which you believe is the sole purpose of marriage......but in many many cases, straight couples aren't always getting married to have children!!!
Add to that the fact that the state allows divorce, adoption (even by a single parent, and in 45 states a gay parent), and does not intervene in cases of childbirth outside wedlock, all of which further disproves the inept notion of a state interest in procreation or child rearing.

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#238 Mar 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Add to that the fact that the state allows divorce, adoption (even by a single parent, and in 45 states a gay parent), and does not intervene in cases of childbirth outside wedlock, all of which further disproves the inept notion of a state interest in procreation or child rearing.
Exactly......and Cooper has failed with his argument on responsible procreation as a reason to prevent Same-Sex Couples from marrying!!!

From what I am getting caught up on.....at least 5 Justices are looking at striking down DOMA Section 3!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#241 Mar 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Exactly......and Cooper has failed with his argument on responsible procreation as a reason to prevent Same-Sex Couples from marrying!!!
From what I am getting caught up on.....at least 5 Justices are looking at striking down DOMA Section 3!!!
Sadly this should be unanimous, and a no-brainer. No where in the US Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to regulate marriage, meaning that it is a power reserved for the states. Ergo, DOMA violates the 10th Amendment right of the states to legislate the issue. Of course the states are mandated by the 14th Amendment to provide equal protection of the law to all persons within their jurisdiction.

Even if they don't deal with it now, this issue is not going away. I sens that the court realizes as much, and may take the opportunity to make a broader ruling than they would prefer to make, just to quiet the issue.

“REMEMBER TO THANK ”

Since: Aug 08

A VET FOR YOUR FREEDOM!

#243 Mar 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly this should be unanimous, and a no-brainer. No where in the US Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to regulate marriage, meaning that it is a power reserved for the states. Ergo, DOMA violates the 10th Amendment right of the states to legislate the issue. Of course the states are mandated by the 14th Amendment to provide equal protection of the law to all persons within their jurisdiction.
Even if they don't deal with it now, this issue is not going away. I sens that the court realizes as much, and may take the opportunity to make a broader ruling than they would prefer to make, just to quiet the issue.
Well, there is a very good chance that DOMA, Section 3 will be gone by June!!!

From what I have read so far, the Justices are pretty convinced that Section 3 was created out of moral disapproval of Gays and Lesbians......and that it also stepped on the State's right to define marriage!!!

Good-bye DOMA, Section 3!!!!
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#244 Mar 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If you wish to appear as dumb as Scalia, that is your right..
Justice dumbass declares scalia dumb...
worthless post of the year!
NEXT!
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#245 Mar 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, just a question from the Chief Justice speculating about the history of marriage and procreation......coming from a man who has NO BIOLOGICAL children of his own......so, should his own marriage be invalidated? I think not and that's the whole point......even Justice Kagan made an issue about marriage being only or mostly about procreation when she mentioned the age of the participates!!!
Again, you want to focus on only that which you believe is the sole purpose of marriage......but in many many cases, straight couples aren't always getting married to have children!!!
sole focus?

read it again, your narrative has now become pure fiction.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#246 Mar 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Could it have been going toward the belief of one of our greatest founding fathers?
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances. Institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-Thomas Jefferson
so with the oral arguments yesterday and all that fodder, you quote JEFFERSON...
I know why...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#247 Mar 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, there is a very good chance that DOMA, Section 3 will be gone by June!!!
From what I have read so far, the Justices are pretty convinced that Section 3 was created out of moral disapproval of Gays and Lesbians......and that it also stepped on the State's right to define marriage!!!
Good-bye DOMA, Section 3!!!!
Hooray!

Good bye to the idea that the federal govt can dictate any definition of marriage to a state, wait, why are YOU cheering?

do you even get waht that means ?

I bet you think it DOESN'T close the door to the soctus to you FOREVER...
let me ask you this, wouldn't a scotus decision to force gay marriage offend their DOMA decision that the states get to decide?

(psst...yes)...think about it dude!
yes, you are a dude.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#248 Mar 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly this should be unanimous, and a no-brainer. No where in the US Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to regulate marriage, meaning that it is a power reserved for the states.
now figure out how then a FUTURE scotus (federal) court can dictate a definition of marriage to the states?

keep calling DOMA a win, kid.
I don't mind.

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
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 2 min Dana Robertson 3,683
News Ted Cruz goes off the rails: 'ISIS is executing... 9 min Xstain Mullah Aroma 68
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 13 min Rosa_Winkel 33,029
News SoCal Rep Wants to Outlaw Gay-to-Straight "Conv... 14 min Xstain Mullah Aroma 122
News Ireland gives resounding 62.1 percent 'yes' to ... 18 min Rose_NoHo 1
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 20 min NoahLovesU 5,612
News The right therapy for LGBT youth 22 min Frankie Rizzo 294
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 37 min Xstain Mullah Aroma 131
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr GayleWood 21,500
News Josh Duggar apology not enough? Fallout from mo... 9 hr Fa-Foxy 25
More from around the web