Gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman. Full Story

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3470 May 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic is just fine. You ask for context so I give it. Too bad you want to spin it as "state interest" or some other pseudo-officious verbiage that actually is in conflict with Constitutional rights.
now you don't seem to even know what your poat was about. the i didn't ask for context, i asked for a valid reason why SSM shouldn't be legal. you keep giving your beefs with other issues that have nothing to do with SSM, as I pointed out to you.

do try harder, dear...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3471 May 21, 2013
anonoymous wrote:
Parse Bunny who seems to be dancing like a total klutz, you go ahead and talk to the funny Congressmen. They can't talk around adults either and they also allow their private obsessions to take over their public lives.
Me? I'm not too interested in motivating the fat porkers who make up the majority of the voting public. But, in the not too distant future, the single people, who won't stand for the loony Socialists and their pets demanding that everyone walk and talk with their pants around their ankles.
If you are going to be insulting, could you are least raise the bar and try to be slightly less juvenile (infantile?).
Your work is really quite unimaginative; but then again, so are your attempts at logic.
anonoymous wrote:
Until then, go ahead and TERRIFY me with your dance to get the moderators to silence my views because of the heinous crime of calling you a parse bunny instead of following forum policy of calling everyone stupid while chopping up rational responses with the dysfunctional quote feature.
There isn't much to say since this thread is just troll territory these days. I may drop in to see if you've completely forgotten how to pull your pants back up. It would be funny! But you've lost the legal high-ground long ago and I'm NOT interested in bumping nozzles with a trash talker.

I donít need, nor do I want, to silence you. You are an excellent argument unto yourself AGAINST your position. You perfectly display the inelegant, ignorant, bigoted, idiotic nature of those who would deny equality under the law.

You paint those who hold a similar position to your own in a horrible light. Why would I want to stop you from beating yourself up in public and giving those who support your position a black eye?
anonoymous wrote:
Carry on! Maybe your ACLU friends call! They are all about petulance to the point of defending the non-existent rights for non-existent citizens! Oh, by the way! They also defend NAMBLA. I hope you're in on that civil rights ride to the very end!
Never let it be said that you make relevant arguments. I do love that you managed to mention both the ACLU and NAMBLA (I had mentioned neither, and the latter has no relevance whatsoever), further proving that you have no valid and on topic points to make, so instead you make references to groups that you think will inflame the topic.

You have made no valid argument against equality. You have proven that you arenít terribly capable of offering a valid argument. Youíve also proven that in lieu of a valid argument you are willing to stoop to offering utterly irrelevant and inflammatory rhetoric in a pitiful attempt to sway opinion.

In reality, you just underscore that you have no valid argument against equality.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3473 May 21, 2013
Done Right wrote:
Woodick, you being a Queer Pedophile, you have nerve talking about equal rights.
You, not being able to distinguish between a homosexual (which is not criminal) and a pedophile (which IS criminal), is indicative of your intelligence... Or lack thereof.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3475 May 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>now you don't seem to even know what your poat was about. the i didn't ask for context, i asked for a valid reason why SSM shouldn't be legal. you keep giving your beefs with other issues that have nothing to do with SSM, as I pointed out to you.
do try harder, dear...
Do try harder? I think not! Your arguments are simplistic sound bite that always deny the big picture!

Why don't you follow your own slogan and "Read em and weep!"

I found that one especially funny. I couldn't decide if you were going to roll into a commercial announcing yourself as a "Democratic Republican"(Slogan ditty not yet determined!) or if you wanted to bump nozzles with the idiot poker playing dogs on the stupid tapestries.

I have come to one conclusion though! You LIKE being a domesticated pet! Well, then shaddup and build yourself a grass nest and start eating tree bark! Munch-munch! Smack! Life is good! Time to self-gratify! Munch-munch-munch!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3476 May 21, 2013
Done Right wrote:
Way to avoid the question.
There was no question in the post to which I was responding. Do try to keep up.
Done Right wrote:
Didn't think you really believed in equality for all. Just a word to use in your fight.
I do believe in equality under the law, except in cases where there is a legitimate state interest served by denying such protection. which is to say, I believe in the law. I couldn't fathom a guess what you believe in.
Done Right wrote:
Homosexuality was illegal at one time!!!
And your point is, what exactly? Slavery was legal at one time, however that fact is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Done Right wrote:
Still is in some countries.
Do you mean to imply that the US should recognize and conform to the laws of other sovereign nations?
Done Right wrote:
Just like incest.
There is a compelling state interest served by denying incestuous marriage that justifies denying close relatives the right to marry. Thus far you have been utterly incapable of articulating any such interest served by preventing same sex couples from marrying.

Actually, thus far you seem utterly out of your depth.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3477 May 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try harder? I think not! Your arguments are simplistic sound bite that always deny the big picture!
Why don't you follow your own slogan and "Read em and weep!"
I found that one especially funny. I couldn't decide if you were going to roll into a commercial announcing yourself as a "Democratic Republican"(Slogan ditty not yet determined!) or if you wanted to bump nozzles with the idiot poker playing dogs on the stupid tapestries.
I have come to one conclusion though! You LIKE being a domesticated pet! Well, then shaddup and build yourself a grass nest and start eating tree bark! Munch-munch! Smack! Life is good! Time to self-gratify! Munch-munch-munch!
Whoops! My bad! It was you buddy who says to "read em and weep!"

Same old, same old. Whenever you post a legitimate source, it contradicts what you're claiming. You don't just cherry pick! You're propagandizing liars.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3478 May 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try harder? I think not! Your arguments are simplistic sound bite that always deny the big picture!
Why don't you follow your own slogan and "Read em and weep!"
I found that one especially funny. I couldn't decide if you were going to roll into a commercial announcing yourself as a "Democratic Republican"(Slogan ditty not yet determined!) or if you wanted to bump nozzles with the idiot poker playing dogs on the stupid tapestries.
I have come to one conclusion though! You LIKE being a domesticated pet! Well, then shaddup and build yourself a grass nest and start eating tree bark! Munch-munch! Smack! Life is good! Time to self-gratify! Munch-munch-munch!
ummm..I've never used that slogan.

so you got nothing on the proven fact that you are unable to come up with one single valid reason to not make SSM legal in the US , or the fact that everyone of the attempts you made dealth with totally different issues and you weren't even smart enough to know the difference? nothing on those at all?

you don't even make the cut as domesticated pet...more like a housel=hold pet, like the ants i squash under my foot (apt description of what i;ve done to every single one of your arguments, and to you by extension...)

just admit that you are a prejudiced bigot and add that to your other shortcomings as a human...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3479 May 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try harder? I think not! Your arguments are simplistic sound bite that always deny the big picture!
Why don't you follow your own slogan and "Read em and weep!"
I found that one especially funny. I couldn't decide if you were going to roll into a commercial announcing yourself as a "Democratic Republican"(Slogan ditty not yet determined!) or if you wanted to bump nozzles with the idiot poker playing dogs on the stupid tapestries.
I have come to one conclusion though! You LIKE being a domesticated pet! Well, then shaddup and build yourself a grass nest and start eating tree bark! Munch-munch! Smack! Life is good! Time to self-gratify! Munch-munch-munch!
Says the fool who often makes long posts that fail to address the topic of the thread.
Can you come up with any reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry, because it's starting to look like you can't.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3480 May 21, 2013
Done Right wrote:
<quoted text>
Woodick, you being a Queer Pedophile, you have nerve talking about equal rights.
you have the nerve to talk like you actually can think for yourself...

try to say something you didn't copy from someone else...c'mon, it'll be fun to watch you blow an aneurism...
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3481 May 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ummm..I've never used that slogan.
so you got nothing on the proven fact that you are unable to come up with one single valid reason to not make SSM legal in the US , or the fact that everyone of the attempts you made dealth with totally different issues and you weren't even smart enough to know the difference? nothing on those at all?
you don't even make the cut as domesticated pet...more like a housel=hold pet, like the ants i squash under my foot (apt description of what i;ve done to every single one of your arguments, and to you by extension...)
just admit that you are a prejudiced bigot and add that to your other shortcomings as a human...
I AM prejudiced! Everyone is prejudiced. The law is prejudiced!

That is why it's not my job to say why not anything!

YOU have to demonstrate that your behavior is an asset to the entire community or you're just engaging in your own prejudice.

Another Boolean ant bites the dust! Good thing I wore my work shoes today.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3482 May 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Whoops! My bad! It was you buddy who says to "read em and weep!"
Same old, same old. Whenever you post a legitimate source, it contradicts what you're claiming. You don't just cherry pick! You're propagandizing liars.
Once again, anonymous posts, yet fails to address the topic in any way. Your mother must be so proud.

This is a legal issue, nothing more.

Legally, marriage is a fundamental right. http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...

You've occasionally referenced DOMA, but you cannot illustrate where in the US Constitution that the federal government was delegated the authority to regulate marriage. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.htm...

You fail to recognize the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. "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." http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...

You fail to understand the judicial system, specifically strict scrutiny, and cannot offer a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Actually, you can't offer any reason whatsoever. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3483 May 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I AM prejudiced! Everyone is prejudiced. The law is prejudiced!
That is why it's not my job to say why not anything!
YOU have to demonstrate that your behavior is an asset to the entire community or you're just engaging in your own prejudice.
Another Boolean ant bites the dust! Good thing I wore my work shoes today.
but you are prejudiced against a group of people for no factual reason, which is really the definition of PRE-judging.

i keep imploring you to find one good reason, and you keep failing miserably at it.

what behavior of mine are you referring to?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3484 May 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
I AM prejudiced! Everyone is prejudiced. The law is prejudiced!
Prejudice (noun)
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...

Do you ever take a moment and think before you post? Because the highest law of the land specifically has equality written into it, which is anything but prejudice.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3486 May 21, 2013
-Kline- wrote:
Aids, is God's way of enforcing his word.
by killing millions of heterosexuals?

which god is it you believe in? the abrahamic god is a proven myth, perhaps this is why you are so confused as to the real world effects of a disease....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3487 May 21, 2013
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why when just allowing a Same-Sex Couple to marry would be much easier?
I didn't think 'equality' meant doing what's 'easy'....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3488 May 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>by killing millions of heterosexuals?
which god is it you believe in? the abrahamic god is a proven myth, perhaps this is why you are so confused as to the real world effects of a disease....
Heterosexuals are sinners too...but that doesn't excuse one sin from the other...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3489 May 21, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
I didn't think 'equality' meant doing what's 'easy'....
It also doesn't mean excluding people from equal protection of the law absent any reason whatsoever.

Because you think they're icky isn't going to stand up in court.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3490 May 21, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Heterosexuals are sinners too...but that doesn't excuse one sin from the other...
Awwwww, how cute, you're invoking sins again.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You see, the same amendment that ensures you can follow the faith of your choosing, also protects me from you projecting your religious morals onto me, which would violate my free exercise; or codifying those beliefs into law, which also would violate the free exercise of all other religions.

Why do you hate freedom of religion?
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3491 May 21, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the fool who often makes long posts that fail to address the topic of the thread.
Can you come up with any reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry, because it's starting to look like you can't.
The reason is that marriage is a union of a man and a woman .How stupid are you that you cant understand that same sex couples dont fit that description and that you cant change that description for a frivolity such as adults with abnormal sexual desires and fetishes as then it becomes something else entirely.
Can you give me the reason for denying incestous couples that are infertile the right to marry?bet you you cant because there is no valid reason ,but doesnt mean that they should be able to marry.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3492 May 21, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, anonymous posts, yet fails to address the topic in any way. Your mother must be so proud.
This is a legal issue, nothing more.
Legally, marriage is a fundamental right. http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
You've occasionally referenced DOMA, but you cannot illustrate where in the US Constitution that the federal government was delegated the authority to regulate marriage. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.htm...
You fail to recognize the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. "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." http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...
You fail to understand the judicial system, specifically strict scrutiny, and cannot offer a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Actually, you can't offer any reason whatsoever. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
What you fail to realize is that the feds are addressing a commerce issue.(But that's not really true because the feds discriminate against single people!) The states still freely decide whether or not to endorse gay marriage. The feds only intervene to reconcile the obligations of the states to honor the contracts of other states.

Not even a scrap of this is about Civil Rights. Homosexuality is a choice, and most often a political choice, not a religious choice, and certainly not a biological imperative.

Yell louder!! LOUDER!!!! Go APE NUTS for us all!

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
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 3 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 192
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 4 min Frankie Rizzo 3,107
3 states deny gay unions despite appellate rulings 9 min Suzie Snotbubbles 26
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 10 min Tre H 25,317
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 17 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 1,564
Berlusconi: Let's legalize gay civil unions 22 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 3
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 22 min The_Box 3,792
Hitching Post wedding chapel sues over gay marr... 40 min nhjeff 29

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE