Obama calls gay marriage advocates

"We're proud of you guys and we're so proud to have this in California," the president said over a choppy cell phone connection. Full Story

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#49 Jun 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not anti-gay or pro-gay. I don't care about you and your boyfriend or what you do. I'm anti-gay marriage. Have your 'union' but I will never recognize any gay couple as being married.
What you personally recognize is irrelevant.

Btw, if you're "anti-gay marriage", that makes you anti-gay.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#50 Jun 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
You really are a laughing stock. If I were your dad I'd swear I never had any children.
If you were my Dad, you would have no children.

I see that you are once again off topic, because you lack the mental capacity to offer a relevant argument in support of your position.

As for laughing stocks, I'm not the one who has consistently failed to answer a simple question, like what compelling state interest is served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Troll on Wondering, I'm going back to ignoring you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#51 Jun 30, 2013
lides wrote:
I'm not the one who has consistently failed to answer a simple question, like what compelling state interest is served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
You are the one who doesn't understand them. You can misinterpret the constitution all you want to. You can see things in it that aren't there. You are a laughing stock but I guess that's a value. The only one I can identify so keep it up, JD.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#52 Jun 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were my Dad, you would have no children.
I'd swear to it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#53 Jun 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What you personally recognize is irrelevant.
Btw, if you're "anti-gay marriage", that makes you anti-gay.
I don't like brussel sprouts, does that make me anti-vegetable?

I don't like sitting next to an obese person on an airplane. Does that make me anti-fat people?

I don't like pink, does that make me anti-color?

I hate cats. Does that make me anti-pet?

You're a tool.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#54 Jun 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like brussel sprouts, does that make me anti-vegetable?
I don't like sitting next to an obese person on an airplane. Does that make me anti-fat people?
I don't like pink, does that make me anti-color?
I hate cats. Does that make me anti-pet?
You're a tool.
Being against equal rights for same-sex couples makes you anti-gay.

Spin it however you want, but that is how you will always be seen.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#55 Jun 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not anti-gay or pro-gay. I don't care about you and your boyfriend or what you do. I'm anti-gay marriage. Have your 'union' but I will never recognize any gay couple as being married.
That's ok; no one is compelled to recognize you as a human being either. But in the end, all such childish charades are subordinate to what the law recognizes anyway.

Since: Mar 07

Hanover, VA

#56 Jun 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like brussel sprouts, does that make me anti-vegetable?
......
If you tried to prevent other people from eating vegetables, based on your personal dislike of brussel sprouts, and despite all science and logic, then yes, you would be anti-vegetable.

As you are anti-gay.

Since: Mar 07

Hanover, VA

#57 Jun 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who doesn't understand them. You can misinterpret the constitution all you want to. You can see things in it that aren't there. You are a laughing stock but I guess that's a value. The only one I can identify so keep it up, JD.
The courts haven't been laughing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#58 Jul 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If you tried to prevent other people from eating vegetables, based on your personal dislike of brussel sprouts, and despite all science and logic, then yes, you would be anti-vegetable.
As you are anti-gay.
Just like I don't care who you sleep with I don't care who eats brussel sprouts. I think marriage and family are important and the word 'marriage' shouldn't be stolen by couples who can't create their own families, whether they want children or not at the time of the marriage, in the absence of medical problems. We have males and females for a reason.

If you want legal recognition for tax reasons, you and other unmarried couples should get them, I have no problem with that. You shouldn't be discriminated against for employment or housing for the sole reason that you're gay.
Yolo

United States

#59 Jul 1, 2013
You only live once!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#60 Jul 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
You are the one who doesn't understand them. You can misinterpret the constitution all you want to. You can see things in it that aren't there. You are a laughing stock but I guess that's a value. The only one I can identify so keep it up, JD.
I am not misinterpreting the US Constitution, you are. The court even said so last week.
"What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconsti- tutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person pro- tected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."
Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in US v Windsor

"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."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...

Wondering, Justice Kennedy's reasoning will soon be the logic used to strike down same sex marriage bans and bring equality to all same sex couples wishing to have the legal protections of marriage. This will happen because people on your side of the argument have no valid legal defense of the existing bans, nor can you indicate even so little as a rational basis to exclude same sex couples from marriage.

If the vocabulary involved is your primary beef, then I suggest you grow up.
Monday

United States

#61 Jul 1, 2013
Yes YOLO
Man

United States

#62 Jul 1, 2013
haha

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#63 Jul 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like I don't care who you sleep with I don't care who eats brussel sprouts. I think marriage and family are important and the word 'marriage' shouldn't be stolen by couples who can't create their own families, whether they want children or not at the time of the marriage, in the absence of medical problems. We have males and females for a reason.
If you want legal recognition for tax reasons, you and other unmarried couples should get them, I have no problem with that. You shouldn't be discriminated against for employment or housing for the sole reason that you're gay.
Just like we don't care if you oppose us using the term marriage both legally and informally to describe our relationships.

We'll just keep steamrolling over you and the rest of the anti-gays until we have marriage equality nationwide.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#64 Jul 2, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
We'll just keep steamrolling over you and the rest of the anti-gays until we have marriage equality nationwide.
Until you and your partner can create your own family you will never have marriage equality. I know, you have a daughter, she is not product of you and your partner.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#65 Jul 2, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you and your partner can create your own family you will never have marriage equality. I know, you have a daughter, she is not product of you and your partner.
Your contempt for the marriages of people, including heterosexuals, who adopt children or employ donor eggs/sperm in order to conceive a child is noted. Fortunately, the law gives your opinion the attention it deserves: none.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#66 Jul 2, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you and your partner can create your own family you will never have marriage equality. I know, you have a daughter, she is not product of you and your partner.
I guess my Aunt & Uncle haven't have marriage equality for the past 50+ years either then.

Of course you know I'm referring to equal treatment under the law, but as an anti-gay troll your only option left now is a lame attempt at insulting my family and the families of millions of gay & straight couples.

Not surprising at all that your bigotry isn't limited to just gays & lesbians.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#67 Jul 2, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Until you and your partner can create your own family you will never have marriage equality. I know, you have a daughter, she is not product of you and your partner.
Dear dingbat,

Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. It never has been, and never will be.

When you make an argument like this, you make yourself appear to have the intelligence of a Kindergarten student... Actually, that isn't fair to the tyke.

"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...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#69 Jul 2, 2013
Bob J 1440 wrote:
Keep running behind criminal laws against nature…you can’t steamroll over heterosexuals, because your parasitic lifestyle choice will perish…. Carful we may decide to do DNA tests on babies to determine if you’re gay then abort you…and end your misery before it starts…
Then what you goona do? Nothing! Because after one generation you’re just a bad nightmare heterosexual’s wakeup from…
How long have you been an idiot?

This is a matter of equality under the law, which is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Only a moron would put forth the concept of genetic screening and genocide. How does it feel to be a fascist?

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 min hal 26,749
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 55 min KiMare 51
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr KiMare 2,874
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr KiMare 201,172
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr KiMare 5,025
Transgender Woman Featured in New Television Ca... 1 hr Sneaky Pete 37
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Cowobunga 51,254
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 hr Terra Firma 5,594
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 16 hr WeTheSheeple 18
More from around the web