Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage

May 14, 2013 Read more: Fox News 1,605
As a crowd of thousands roared from the lawn of the state Capitol, Minnesota Gov. Read more
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1860 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a nincompoop.
Did society suddenly rush to accept the end of slavery, women's right to vote, desegregation, or interracial marriage? Of course not. Changes in the law impact equality under the law, they will never change the views of the most stubborn in society, nor need they do so. There will always be bigots who do not accept others for who they are. Period end of story. Changes in the law do not affect their perceptions of the world, nor should they. They have a right to be an uninformed and bigoted person.
Interracial marriage is not comparable to same-sex marriage. A fertile man and woman are anatomically compatible and can procreate, regardless of their skin pigmentation. A fertile man and man or woman and woman are neither anatomically/sexually compatible nor capable of producing a baby together in a natural way (I know it’s hard to accept, but that’s the truth).

General Colin Powell once said,“skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of all behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”(Source: Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995, p. 533)
The Coal Handlers Son

Franklin, IN

#1861 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, the rest of us are bright enough to realize that if reproduction is the only reason for wanting to engage in a sexual act, then homosexual behavior is incredibly unlikely to work to that end. But what you need to realize is that most other folk haven't limit their sex lives to breeding attempts. While you may fantasize homosexual acts to be "unnatural", nature has always disagreed with you. More than a thousand different species have found such acts to be perfectly normal and natural, whether you are icked out by them or not. Your problems with "homosexuality", "homosexuals" and/or "homosexual acts", yours, not nature's, not God's and certainly not ours. Thanks for sharing, but it really wasn't necessary.
I'm so tired of hearing that BS excuse that many species find this homosexual behavior natural. Are you kidding me? I've never seen a bull ride a bull or a male squirrel ride another make squirrel . Your big on proof send me the pics of all these homo animals in nature! What a lame excuse!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1862 Jul 1, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
Interracial marriage is not comparable to same-sex marriage.
Of course it is. Both were once forbidden in certain jurisdictions, and in each case there was no compelling state interest served by the exclusion of those individuals from legal marriage. Feel free to prove otherwise. I don't think you can.
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
A fertile man and woman are anatomically compatible and can procreate, regardless of their skin pigmentation. A fertile man and man or woman and woman are neither anatomically/sexually compatible nor capable of producing a baby together in a natural way (I know it’s hard to accept, but that’s the truth).
That would be a valid point if procreation were a prerequisite for, or requirement of, legal marriage. That is not the case.
"With Proposition 8, Cooper said, California voters merely defended that tradition. A court, therefore,“should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant, or bigoted.” At the heart of the case “are two competing conceptions of the institution of marriage, and of its central purpose,” Cooper declared.“We say that the central and the defining purpose of marriage is to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing, and raising the next generation. Plaintiffs say that the central and constitutionally mandated purpose of marriage is simply to provide formal government recognition to loving, committed relationships.”

Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:

THE COURT: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
MR. COOPER: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
THE COURT: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
MR. COOPER: I rejoice to hear that.

Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”

“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18...
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
General Colin Powell once said,“skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of all behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”(Source: Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995, p. 533)
All due respect to Colonel Powell, there is no scientific evidence that sexuality is not inherent. However, even if it was not, that has no bearing upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws for all people.

In short, your argument is utterly irrelevant.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1863 Jul 1, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing that BS excuse that many species find this homosexual behavior natural. Are you kidding me? I've never seen a bull ride a bull or a male squirrel ride another make squirrel . Your big on proof send me the pics of all these homo animals in nature! What a lame excuse!
And I am so tried of idiots insisting that sexuality must be considered "natural" in order to receive equal protection of the laws.

Such an assertion is asinine. Homosexuals are people, and as such are entitled to equal protection of the laws in this country. Unless you can indicate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, that equal protection must include marriage.
The Coal Handlers Son

Franklin, IN

#1864 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, the rest of us are bright enough to realize that if reproduction is the only reason for wanting to engage in a sexual act, then homosexual behavior is incredibly unlikely to work to that end. But what you need to realize is that most other folk haven't limit their sex lives to breeding attempts. While you may fantasize homosexual acts to be "unnatural", nature has always disagreed with you. More than a thousand different species have found such acts to be perfectly normal and natural, whether you are icked out by them or not. Your problems with "homosexuality", "homosexuals" and/or "homosexual acts", yours, not nature's, not God's and certainly not ours. Thanks for sharing, but it really wasn't necessary.
Oh, wait, I was wrong! My dog just humped my leg he must be gay ! Wow, who knew ? You're right! Purely natural! What an idiotic attempt to justify your perversion not inversion!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1865 Jul 1, 2013
Brooke wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexual behavior continues we sure will have a shortage in babbies. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I ever said I hate others who love each other. In no way do I hate gays, all I'm saying is the statistics show how unhealthy it is. And not getting one doesn't eliminate the problem. This is a growing issue in society but if the gay community does not realize how unhealthy Thier behavior is they are going to end up dying because of HIV. Oh and just a side not I weight 109 pounds so in response to your "fat ass" commented I suggest you get your facts straight. You not only sound uneducated but you are attacking the person instead of the issue. This is a fallacy and ultimately just proves how much you are lacking decency.
The uneducated one here is you.

Homosexuality has existed throughout recorded human history and yet the human population is at an all time high and growing. That's because homosexuals comprise only a small portion of the total population (perhaps 2-5%) that in no way reduces human procreativity below the necessary replacement rate. And, in fact, many gays and lesbians still procreate nonetheless.

On a global basis, HIV affects far more heterosexuals than homosexuals. HIV started in sub-Saharan Africa as a disease affecting primarily heterosexuals. It spread outside of Africa by means of visitors who became infected and took it back to their home countries. Genetic analysis of the HIV virus has revealed the predominate virus strain in the US entered the country by way of Haiti. If you've ever bothered to read HIV literature other than that claiming it's a gay disease, you'd know that in developed countries such as the US and and in Europe, it primarily affects gays and intravenous drug users because those transmission vectors are more efficient than heterosexual sexual contact. So the disease progressed rapidly and undetected through those populations until it came on the radar screen in the US in the early 1980's. HIV detection in gays/drug users combined with the fact HIV is harder to transmit via penile/vaginal intercourse and therefore takes longer to establish a beach head in the heterosexual population is what likely spared the US and Europe from having HIV widespread within their heterosexual populations. So rather than condemning gays as unhealthy disease mongers, you really should be thanking them for making the government aware of HIV's existence as well as bearing the brunt of the disease in the US (as well as the resulting discrimination and condemnation from uneducated people like you) that prevented HIV from becoming endemic within the straight population here like in Africa.

And with the advent of anti-retroviral drugs, HIV infection is no longer a death sentence but has become a chronic disease for those taking the appropriate drugs. Which makes continuing education even more important so people not currently infected know how to take precautions against contracting the virus. And that includes educating heterosexuals since bisexuals can and do act as a bridge for HIV between the gay and straight populations.
The Coal Handlers Son

Franklin, IN

#1866 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>And I am so tried of idiots insisting that sexuality must be considered "natural" in order to receive equal protection of the laws.

Such an assertion is asinine. Homosexuals are people, and as such are entitled to equal protection of the laws in this country. Unless you can indicate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, that equal protection must include marriage.
I agree! I you should have equal rights under the law including your other minority rights that I ,as a white heterosexual male ,do not possess! All I'm saying is your lifestyle is still a perversion! Read my posts ALL the way through before you run your mouth

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#1867 Jul 1, 2013
Brooke wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexual behavior continues we sure will have a shortage in babbies. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I ever said I hate others who love each other. In no way do I hate gays, all I'm saying is the statistics show how unhealthy it is. And not getting one doesn't eliminate the problem. This is a growing issue in society but if the gay community does not realize how unhealthy Thier behavior is they are going to end up dying because of HIV. Oh and just a side not I weight 109 pounds so in response to your "fat ass" commented I suggest you get your facts straight. You not only sound uneducated but you are attacking the person instead of the issue. This is a fallacy and ultimately just proves how much you are lacking decency.
You should have thought out that first sentence.....HETERO people have babies ALL the time.....there will never be a shortage. Plus HIV does NOT discriminate. It does not know gender or gay, str8 or bi.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1868 Jul 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Impossible. The relationships are nothing like each other.
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1869 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
All due respect to Colonel Powell, there is no scientific evidence that sexuality is not inherent. However, even if it was not, that has no bearing upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws for all people.
In short, your argument is utterly irrelevant.
You forgot to explain why anatomic incompatibility should not be a prerequisite for, or requirement of, legal marriage. You only focused on the procreation aspect of my argument. If humans are not allowed to marry other mammalian species (e.g. dogs horses etc.), on the basis of anatomic/sexual incompatibility, then shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to humans?

To date, there is no scientific evidence that sexual preference is congenital. Since homosexuality is not a biological condition, it shouldn’t be compared to inborn characteristics such as skin color, gender, mental disability etc.

In my view, I don’t think sexual behavior ought to be the basis for minority status. If it were then society would have to, for the sake of fairness, grant polyamorous groups (see footnote 1) equal protection of the laws just as homosexuals.

What a ridiculous concept!

Footnote 1: Polyamorous Orientation: According to the theory of Genetic Imperative, many men are biologically hardwired or oriented to feel attraction toward multiple women, yet social values and socialization pressures require men to repress expression of these innate impulses (this is true across all socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural groups – think Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods). Since a predominant number of men have inborn sexual tendencies that are incompatible with a monogamous lifestyle, by no fault of their own, marriage ought to be progressively redefined as a socially approved relationship between an undefined number of consenting spouses.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1870 Jul 1, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
I agree! I you should have equal rights under the law including your other minority rights that I ,as a white heterosexual male ,do not possess! All I'm saying is your lifestyle is still a perversion! Read my posts ALL the way through before you run your mouth
Your bigoted ignorance speaks for itself.

what rights do you feel you are lacking? Apart from of course the right to shut up? Perhaps you don't so much lack that right as much as the ability to do so?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1871 Jul 1, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
HETERO people have babies ALL the time.....
Because "HETERO" couples can.'HOMO' couples can't.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1872 Jul 1, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
On a global basis, HIV affects far more heterosexuals than homosexuals.
How about here in the US?
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1873 Jul 1, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm so tired of hearing that BS excuse that many species find this homosexual behavior natural. Are you kidding me? I've never seen a bull ride a bull or a male squirrel ride another make squirrel . Your big on proof send me the pics of all these homo animals in nature! What a lame excuse!
You got that right, brother!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1875 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bigoted ignorance speaks for itself.
what rights do you feel you are lacking? Apart from of course the right to shut up? Perhaps you don't so much lack that right as much as the ability to do so?
Kids would call you a 'tard.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1877 Jul 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Kids would call you a 'tard.
Adults would call you a troll.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that you are capable of being a grown up and supporting your view by offering a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

Barring that, I would love to hear the laundry list of way in which your life has been adversely impacted since the legalization of same sex marriage in Massachusetts.

In the alternative, you could keep offering off topic quips and personal insults further proving to everyone on the thread just what kind of person you really are. You don't paint a flattering picture of yourself.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1880 Jul 1, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing that BS excuse that many species find this homosexual behavior natural. Are you kidding me?
No dear, you're lack of personal observation notwithstanding, you really haven't got a clue. Here's one of my all time favorite general articles on the subject, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

You'd be amazed what actually goes on in the wild kingdom that you have absolutely no idea about.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1882 Jul 1, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
Oh, wait, I was wrong!
I already know this sweetie, it's you who haven't gotten the message yet.
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
What an idiotic attempt to justify your perversion not inversion!
I'm just going by what Freud said sweetie, you on the other hand are a badly informed idiot who isn't afraid to share what he doesn't really know. If you wanna believe that Freud was wrong in calling homosexuality an inversion, thus making everything he had to say about perversions completely irrelevant to it, you go right ahead. You don't have to let reality get in the way of what you think if you don't want to.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#1883 Jul 1, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Adults would call you a troll.
I'm still waiting for you to prove that you are capable of being a grown up and supporting your view by offering a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Barring that, I would love to hear the laundry list of way in which your life has been adversely impacted since the legalization of same sex marriage in Massachusetts.
In the alternative, you could keep offering off topic quips and personal insults further proving to everyone on the thread just what kind of person you really are. You don't paint a flattering picture of yourself.
You had us at the first sentence....the rest,par for the course. SPOT ON!
Brooke

Burlington, NC

#1884 Jul 1, 2013
Sparkle_is_stripper wrote:
<quoted text>but hey you know... don't let facts get in the way of your blinding ignorance
You can throw your biblical interpretations at me all day, however I never even brought christianity into the argument. I do think reading the verses in context and a direct translation would make you realize how false your claims truly are, but like I said I am leaving Christianity out of this. According to you I hate on loving people, but if our society just lets anyone marry anyone they love then it would be okay for a 50 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl if "he loves her". Do you think that is right? They are the exact same thing. Just two people who "love each other". However it is very easy to see how disgusting and wrong that is. I also never made the claim that heterosexual's did not carry HIV. All I was claiming was that a gay lifestyle is obviously unhealthy in men because of the growing HIV rates. Please read this article if you have any doubt of my facts http://healthfinder.gov/News/Article.aspx... . It is very obvious that HIV is the most prevalent among gays. Also in no way am i trying to be ignorant. Ignorance means lacking knowledge or awareness. That would mean i was uneducated. However I am not so I suggest you stop attacking me and focus on the issue at hand.

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 Hillary Clinton has a new position on same-sex ... 9 min woodtick57 184
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 11 min NoahLovesU 737
Are the mods fair and balanced? 24 min Frankie Rizzo 456
News Which presidential hopefuls would attend a gay ... 39 min Lawrence Wolf 68
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 57 min Frankie Rizzo 2,605
News God has blessed us: Donations to Indiana pizzer... 1 hr RiccardoFire 297
News Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions (Oct '14) 1 hr WasteWater 6,380
News Gay 'marriage': A recipe for anarchy 1 hr Otter in the Ozarks 29
News Shop owner will deny - openly gay' customers 7 hr Christians In Nam... 36
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr Reverend Alan 19,163
More from around the web