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 09

Location hidden

#5190 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
Is 'option' also a medical term?'Compulsion' juxtaposed against 'option', that's all.'Compulsion' means you're one track or even better, off-track and that's a disaster, which is far acute than a 'disorder'.
Now why do you go to great lengths to infer that I'm a shrink? Are you looking for one all the time?
I too have looked-up wikipedia, and there is nothing flattering about your world. More suicide rates, depression, anxiety. That's not flattering.
Ever read the Merck Manual or the DSM? Those are FULL of hetero's unflattering reality.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5191 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess it has no bearing on my point that the Hindu caste system is not a good role model for Libertarian thinking. Right?
Now, here's the tricky part.
What is the symbolic meaning to "karma" or "kamma" as you seem to want to call it? What is the "symbolic" meaning of the "soul"?
Where I differ with most is that I perceive that kind of language as a rationalization of obsessive-compulsive behavior when reason does not support one's selfish intentions. It's the pathological liar thing. But nobody understands until they've gone all the way down to rock bottom.
Now, in another culture, I'd be more generous. As long as one seeks to understand his or herself, I'll indulge that abstraction a bit more......I don't think you're about that. I think you want to drive a metaphorical car off a cliff with your bestest buddy, but in a way that doesn't hurt you but makes bunk buddy more dependent on you.
Show Mr. Obama your genitals and advise him on how to conduct a war. Then tell him that you're going to stay home and get a free sex change operation on the taxpayer's dollar, followed by a pardon and a "hard earned" war hero's book tour.
DO IT! You WILL DO IT!....and it will probably work!
You're rambling and incoherent.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5192 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
What does an ignorant rant on Buddhism have to do with gay marriage?
People keep trying to give you object lessons on karma, but they ain't sticking.
(if this comes up more than once, it's the anonymous postings. I think the nannybot is just based on local laws.)
Sanskrit: karma

Pali: kamma
Gay_But_Not_Gay

Hyderabad, India

#5193 Sep 5, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem a little confused. Gay people can be the biological parent of a child, or they can adopt children in the same way that many heterosexuals do.
Nothing "artificial" about parents, My Dear. It's a lot of real life, real love, and hard work.
And those children, either biological or adopted, ALL can benefit from having married parents in the same way that every other child can, if their parents put in the love and commitment necessary.
Can you explain your dislike for adoption? And what would you promote as a better alternative, one less "artificial" for those children who were created out of irresponsible heterosexual fornication?
Euthanasia?
Others before me have said this, but I'll repeat the most obvious fact. You are poor social role models. Even one of you being a biological parent will not ease the child's life. I know, as I've already mentioned here, the dubious presence of the other same-sex person is explained as 'normal'. Otherwise the child will die of unhappiness, which will preempt Euthanasia.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5194 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
Others before me have said this, but I'll repeat the most obvious fact. You are poor social role models. Even one of you being a biological parent will not ease the child's life. I know, as I've already mentioned here, the dubious presence of the other same-sex person is explained as 'normal'. Otherwise the child will die of unhappiness, which will preempt Euthanasia.
You should really seek professional help.

This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is unsubstantiated by any study, or medical, scientific, or academic organization.

Simply put, it is nothing more than your own BS rhetoric.
anonymous

Austin, TX

#5195 Sep 5, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO realize that the only difference between a gay person and a straight person is the gender they can be attracted to, right?
All the rest of this stuff has no bearing on anything.
Gay folks are liberals and conservatives, follow every religion and no religion, share the same morals, or lack of them. There is no other difference. We aren't "created" by society or "liberals". We are, and have always been, just a simply variation among humans.
And, when it comes to love, marriage, and family, we are the same as well. Many of us value and seek such things, and many of us fail at them, or don't value them at all. Again, no difference, except the ones that people like yourself seem to want to create and enforce.
Why blow such a small difference out of proportion? Why work so hard to identify people as "other", just to make yourself feel more secure?
I will never understand why it is important for folks like you to do so. It's just not logical.
1. I'm talking about liberals, not you. Why is it always about you?.....professional victim!

2. Yes, you are different. You engage in a form of sexuality that does not agree with the biological purpose. We're not talking about Freudian death wishes, although that may be how it starts. We're talking about an obsessive-compulsive behavior that the majority community doesn't address responsibly. Some contain it better than others, but there is an established precedent to prohibit deviant sexual behavior. Our society tolerates a lot, but we don't have to make a protected institution out of it in any form.

We've been through this a thousand times. What's different between pedophilia and homosexuality? What's different between polygamy and homosexuality? I'll tell you what the difference is. It's purely a matter of what the collective culture is willing to tolerate.

I'm telling you that the collective culture is going to go critical if you continue to try to undermine the individual cultures in the name of socialist politics. Other than that, I couldn't care less about your nasty behavior!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5196 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
Others before me have said this, but I'll repeat the most obvious fact. You are poor social role models. Even one of you being a biological parent will not ease the child's life. I know, as I've already mentioned here, the dubious presence of the other same-sex person is explained as 'normal'. Otherwise the child will die of unhappiness, which will preempt Euthanasia.
Don't know any kids raised in gay families, or even any gay families, do ya?

Here are a couple:



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Not exactly lives filled with "unhappiness".

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-couples-cens...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/...

We are VERY different here is the USA; so different that you cannot (obviously) imagine it.

You have a problem with gang-rapes, child brides, forced marriages, dowry, and treating women as almost subhuman property.

You have no place speaking about child-rearing. You guys create messes.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5197 Sep 5, 2013
Are you high? Because it is far to early in the morning to show this level of paranoia.
anonymous wrote:
We've been through this a thousand times. What's different between pedophilia and homosexuality?
Are you an idiot? Do you really mean to equate sexual contact with a minor, incapable of granting legal consent, to consensual sexual contact between adults? If you don't understand the difference between the two it says more of your incompetence than anything else.
anonymous wrote:
What's different between polygamy and homosexuality?
Once again, can you not count?
anonymous wrote:
I'll tell you what the difference is. It's purely a matter of what the collective culture is willing to tolerate.
I'm telling you that the collective culture is going to go critical if you continue to try to undermine the individual cultures in the name of socialist politics. Other than that, I couldn't care less about your nasty behavior!
The reality remains that unless denying equal protection of the law serves a compelling governmental interest, such a restriction is not constitutional. To say that marriage is only what
"the collective culture is willing to tolerate,"
is a pretty juvenile dodge that fails to address the question at hand.

It looks as though you have no valid argument.
anonymous

Germany

#5198 Sep 5, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanskrit: karma
Pali: kamma
Too bad you quoted the wrong part!

BTW - I already looked that all up as soon as I saw you were talking about Karma as a part of Buddhist philosophy rather than Hindu. Generally, Americans who know anything on the subject link it to Hinduism, but like with many religions, new ones tend to co-opt abstractions from the old ones in an effort to spread the word.

On the original subject, Buddhism is a miniscule fraction of the religions practiced in India so I really don't know why you brought it up, except maybe in a typically cliche effort to be the center of attention in other people's discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indi...
Lides

Pittsfield, MA

#5199 Sep 5, 2013
I miss my pitcher, Praxis33
anonymous

Höst, Germany

#5200 Sep 5, 2013
lides wrote:
Are you high? Because it is far to early in the morning to show this level of paranoia.
<quoted text>
Are you an idiot? Do you really mean to equate sexual contact with a minor, incapable of granting legal consent, to consensual sexual contact between adults? If you don't understand the difference between the two it says more of your incompetence than anything else.
<quoted text>
Once again, can you not count?
<quoted text>
The reality remains that unless denying equal protection of the law serves a compelling governmental interest, such a restriction is not constitutional. To say that marriage is only what
"the collective culture is willing to tolerate,"
is a pretty juvenile dodge that fails to address the question at hand.
It looks as though you have no valid argument.
Looks to me like you're out to deny your rationalization of "rights" and "equal protection to pedophiles and polygamists.

You want the money for yourself! JUST like the Hetero couples do! But it has to come from somewhere. Where are the "rights" and "equal protection" of single people here?

And don't give me that same ol' cr#p that the self-important Jesus toads do. I choose not to get married and I should not be penalized for that choice.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5201 Sep 5, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Looks to me like you're out to deny your rationalization of "rights" and "equal protection to pedophiles and polygamists.
Unless you are setting out to prove that you are an imbecile, and you are doing an impressive job, these two topics are irrelevant, and here's why.
Pedophilia is illegal, specifically because one partner is underage, and incapable of granting legal consent. A legitimate state interest is served by denying marriage in such a situation, namely protecting the rights of the minor.
Polygamy does not seek equal protection of the law, but rather greater protection. Anyone who can count to three can understand this simple reality, and only truly stupid people advance polygamy as being a valid argument.
anonymous wrote:
You want the money for yourself! JUST like the Hetero couples do! But it has to come from somewhere. Where are the "rights" and "equal protection" of single people here?
What is this money you speak of? You sound insane.
anonymous wrote:
And don't give me that same ol' cr#p that the self-important Jesus toads do. I choose not to get married and I should not be penalized for that choice.
Sorry Charlie, marriage is a choice. If you choose not to enter into a marriage, or more likely cannot convince anyone to marry you, then you can't avail yourself of the legal protections (or liabilities) of marriage, plain and simple.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

Hyderabad, India

#5202 Sep 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You should really seek professional help.
This is nothing more than your opinion, and it is unsubstantiated by any study, or medical, scientific, or academic organization.
Simply put, it is nothing more than your own BS rhetoric.
Why don't you introspect on life instead of feeling smug about some crap thrown up by BS studies. You're reveling on borrowed intelligence, as obviously you have none. Its about you painting a rosy picture to your children and making them accept you, while really you're far removed from life. And you say I need help?!
Lides

Pittsfield, MA

#5203 Sep 5, 2013
I miss my pitcher, Praxis33

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5205 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
Why don't you introspect on life instead of feeling smug about some crap thrown up by BS studies. You're reveling on borrowed intelligence, as obviously you have none. Its about you painting a rosy picture to your children and making them accept you, while really you're far removed from life. And you say I need help?!
Would you care to make a point?
You do need help. You are a bigoted fool, arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.

You are clearly ignorant of the constitution and US jurisprudence, and you have no valid argument to support your position, which is why you inflict painful attempts at thought like the one to which I am responding.

Your argument would be funny if it weren't simply pathetic.

Can you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry that would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you have a valid argument? I don't think you can.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

Chennai, India

#5206 Sep 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you care to make a point?
You do need help. You are a bigoted fool, arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
You are clearly ignorant of the constitution and US jurisprudence, and you have no valid argument to support your position, which is why you inflict painful attempts at thought like the one to which I am responding.
Your argument would be funny if it weren't simply pathetic.
Can you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry that would render such a restriction constitutional, and prove that you have a valid argument? I don't think you can.
'equality of equals', not inequals like straights & gays.
I've already answered your 'state interest' in a previous post. Please turn the pages. And you've not answered that yet.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5207 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
'equality of equals', not inequals like straights & gays.
I've already answered your 'state interest' in a previous post. Please turn the pages. And you've not answered that yet.
Sorry, moron, try again.

"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...

No mention of "equality for equals," which is an idiotic assertion.

Actually, you have never addressed the state interest question.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5211 Sep 5, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>You homosexuals may say that you follow every religion, but you really don't. If you followed the Word, you wouldn't celebrate your mental disorder, you'd be seeking help. All your high minded bullshit is just that. Sorry.
your "Word" is from a proven false myth...

you worship the words of humans. you worship a false idol. you are in a cult.
Gay_But_Not_Gay

India

#5212 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
My last answer to Lides applies to your happy gay parenting 'reality' show.
Looking at all the Indian issues in the context of your peculiar problem, I'm inclined to think they are blessings in disguise.
1. Gang rapes are there in all nations where men are.
2. Child marriage & forced marriage - Better sense prevails to avoid the nonsense that you people now force.'Child marriage' is consummated only after the bride's puberty - It is not pedophilia.
3. Ah, yes, dowry!- One of the fall-outs of marriage arrangements. It has its origin in times when women did not inherit. Dowry was a marriage gift to her and not her man. But it is conveniently continued by patriarchs, as men want to cling on to all advantages they had since caveman times.
All said and done, none of these revolt against natural laws as much as you.
I would also clarify that all these social customs - child marriage, forced marriage, dowry have been abolished by law in India. Legal age for women is 18 & for men is 21yrs. They can be breached by persons at the risk of criminal prosecution. The state does not support this.
I've to say this because most of you know very little about the world outside of USA and you should not be led to believe that India is archaic.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#5213 Sep 5, 2013
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
I would also clarify that all these social customs - child marriage, forced marriage, dowry have been abolished by law in India. Legal age for women is 18 & for men is 21yrs. They can be breached by persons at the risk of criminal prosecution. The state does not support this.
I've to say this because most of you know very little about the world outside of USA and you should not be led to believe that India is archaic.
yes, and no-one under the age of 21 drinniks alcohol in the US...

Pffft. if i have to point out the contradiction in your statement about the law and the nation of India, all the irony will leak out...

youa re not really from india, are you?

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
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 4 min Tubal Cain 1,983
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 27 min jane 200,977
Allowing Blood Donations From Gay Men Could Hel... 48 min Wondering 39
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 59 min MaryanMattie 49,899
Southern Governor Fights Same-Sex Marriage - An... 1 hr KiMare 13
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 1 hr KiMare 24
Biggest Gay Lies 2 hr steve 2,077
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 6 hr NorCal Native 249
How long before being gay is a fireable offense? 8 hr Mitt s Airtight D... 32
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 8 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,288
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 9 hr Frankie Rizzo 890
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••