Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop ...

Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

There are 1477 comments on the EDGE story from Dec 20, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges. In it, EDGE reports that:

On December 7, marriage equality proponents heard the news they'd been waiting to hear: that the Supreme Court will review whether the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1342 Jan 31, 2013
One wonders is Wondering will ever be intelligent enough to offer a correlation between their arguments regarding school curricula and same sex marriage.

Although they intently offer the arguments, they don't seem to understand that they are utterly irrelevant.

They certainly have never offered a valid argument against equal protection of the laws for homosexuals to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1343 Jan 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
1. Then you don't understand what a biological parent is. I'm hoping you know where babies come from?
Wondering, you are trying to shift the debate to an irrelevant argument. This isn't a matter of the circumstances of conception. There are many different means of parenting. There are biological parents, artificial insemination, use of a surrogate, and of course adoption. The means of conception is irrelevant to parenting.
Wondering wrote:
2. Do straight families object?
Do they object to geology? Only if their stupid. Then again they only object to tolerance if they are stupid.

You skipped over three. Were you not up to the task of responding?
Wondering wrote:
4. That is what they are trying to accomplish with 5 and 6 year old kids. The "authoritarians" in the classroom.
No, they are merely trying to educate and reduce ignorance, in order to combat bullying, which is a by product of intolerance.

I personally think your advocacy of intolerance is hysterical, bigoted, and sad.
Wondering wrote:
5. I don't support anything that is used as a reason to legitimize brainwashing little kids.
How does acknowledging that same sex couples exist qualify as brain washing? What would you do if you saw a same sex couples holding hands in public and a 5 year old asked what that was all about?

Although you like to portray it as indoctrination, this is the reality of what we are talking about, which is nothing more than acknowledging the existence of such couples.
Wondering wrote:
6. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom without government interference, why are you wiping your ass with that?
Please feel free to indicate how your religious freedom has been infringed. Be specific.

This should be amusing... If idiotic.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1344 Jan 31, 2013
1. You missed the point, either out of stupidity or an attempt to deflect from your losing, illogical argument. Not all parents are biological parents, so you argument about "everyone has a mommy and daddy" is irrelevant to any issue under discussion. In a non-biological sense - like oh, for say something relevant to the discussion like socioeconomics. We aren't arguing biology here. We are arguing about whether gays should be married, which has nothing to do with that, and your tangential disagreement about information being provided to elementary school students. Neither of those issues - which are themselves unrelated - has anything to do with the existence of biological parents, both or neither of which my end up being the de facto parent of a child.
You've got nothing, you're just spewing randomly.
2. Some Creationists do object to the teaching of certain aspects of geology and other sciences, and they get told to STFU, as it should be. Not just because they are factually and legally incorrect, but because they are a tiny insane minority that gets outvoted. You are now plummetting into the minority on this issue, and that's what really chaps your ass - you know you are losing the argument, both here and out in the real world.
3/4. The provision of information is not authoritarianism. The censorship of it can be. You have it entirely backasswards. Authoritarians want to limit access of information to people, not disseminate it.
5. Providing information is not brainwashing. Telling kids they can't pick on homosexuals or bully them is not brainwashing. Explaining that homosexuals exist and have rights is not brainwashing. People like you believe that the provision of ANY information you don't personally agree with is "indoctrination." You want to control the marketplace of ideas, and exclude this or that idea you don't like. That's censorship, that's authoritarianism - just like telling people they can't get married - when such marriage does not affect your rights at all - is authoritarianism. It's the same tactics the Soviets used to repress dissent.
Again, the provision or prurient material to young kids is wrong, but that is not what we are talking about here at all, and you know it.
5. First of all, that's not the part of the First Amendment I was talking about. Secondly, you are showing you ignorance of basic American civics again - you could not be more wrong. Providing basic information about the existence of homosexuality does not violate the Free Exercise clause. The religious have the right to free exercise of their religion, they do NOT have the right to impose their opinions on others using the apparatus of the state (the Establishment clause). They DO NOT have the right to exclude from the public sphere ideas they do not agree with, even in and ESPECIALLY in the context of a public school. The religion clauses do not apply here at all, except in the sense that the religious cannot ban stuff from a school because they disagree with it on religious grounds.
Again, you are sounding more and more like a Creationist.
No, I am talking about the straight up first clause of the First amendment dealing directly with free speech per se. Example - a school policy or regulation - or any other government policy or law - that says "no information about homosexuality shall be given out in public schools" etc. would be blatantly unconstitutional absent a showing of a COMPELLING state interest.
And you really, really do not have one of those.
Did you even take high school civics, because you sure do seem to know very little about our Constitution

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1345 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
1. You missed the point, either out of stupidity or an attempt to deflect from your losing, illogical argument. Not all parents are biological parents, so you argument about "everyone has a mommy and daddy" is irrelevant to any issue under discussion. In a non-biological sense - like oh, for say something relevant to the discussion like socioeconomics. We aren't arguing biology here. We are arguing about whether gays should be married, which has nothing to do with that, and your tangential disagreement about information being provided to elementary school students. Neither of those issues - which are themselves unrelated - has anything to do with the existence of biological parents, both or neither of which my end up being the de facto parent of a child.
You've got nothing, you're just spewing randomly.
I wouldn't expect much from Wondering. They are not the shiniest penny in the jar.

At one point, they were arguing that allowing same sex marriage would lead to polygamy, and it was pointed out that polygamists, by definition, seek greater protection of the law for three or more people, while homosexuals seek equal protection of the law for two people. Wondering was never really able to digest the fact that three or more is inherently greater than two.

You can't expect even basic logic or reasoning from someone who cannot understand such basic facts.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1346 Jan 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I authored nothing, it was some gay guy that pretended to be a woman so he could pretend to be romantically involved with a college football star. Do you read the news?
2. I've given you the titles to some of the books, what more do you need?
2a. Yes, it protects religious freedom without government interference. That should guarantee an opt-out for parents who don't want their kids reading gay stories.
3. You are bigoted toward people who want choice. To people that want to instill their values and religion in THEIR kids.
4. Or because of it.
1. You posted it bub. Now you are trying to backpedal out of it. Too late. You chose it as an example, not me. Never mind it also has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, except to expose your latent homosexuality, which would of course explain your externalized and misplaced self-loathing.

2. Titles to what? How about you give us some logical argument instead, though frankly I think you aren't capable of it. Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and often prove our points for us. Thanks for that, BTW. The volcano comment was particularly helpful to my side of the argument, ROTFLMAO.

2a. That's not how it works, at all. You know nothing about this area of the law. Go read some SCOTUS cases on this topic, not that you will understand any of it...

3. You are in no position to accuse anyone else of denying choice to others.Information is just information. How people feel about it or how the parents at home choose to cast it for their kids is their business. What I do know, from high school, three years of law school and 20 years of practice (including representing both school boards and parents) is that parents with religious objections don't get: a) a specialized curriculum just for them and b) the ability to delete things from the curriculum based on religious objections.

Anyway they already have that option: private or home school. Go for it.

Oh, and homosexuality is not a religion and therefore falls outside the Establishment clause.

Seriously, where did you learn logic? Because damn, you are really, really bad at it.

Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1347 Jan 31, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't expect much from Wondering. They are not the shiniest penny in the jar.
At one point, they were arguing that allowing same sex marriage would lead to polygamy, and it was pointed out that polygamists, by definition, seek greater protection of the law for three or more people, while homosexuals seek equal protection of the law for two people. Wondering was never really able to digest the fact that three or more is inherently greater than two.
You can't expect even basic logic or reasoning from someone who cannot understand such basic facts.
Classic slippery slope fallacy stuff. They also love to throw out post hoc fallacies too. This person has had no exposure to actual logic or any kind of education in critical thinking.

Has this person even once actually articulated what their specific beef with homosexuality is? Can this person say clearly why the existence of homosexuals should be ignored in public school curricula?

Does he even know why he doesn't like gays?

He claims his objections are not religious, so in what are they based?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1348 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
1. You missed the point, either out of stupidity or an attempt to deflect from your losing, illogical argument. Not all parents are biological parents, so you argument about "everyone has a mommy and daddy" is irrelevant to any issue under discussion.
I think you missed the point. It takes one man and one woman to produce a child. This man and woman are the parents of that child.

You are referring to another class of parent, namely, legal parents. The fact is that without biological parents there would be no other class of parent, legal or otherwise. You are free to call my argument irrelevant but you can't call it fictitious. It seems that you would sweep biological parents under your rug along with religious freedom and choice. That's fine, it's your choice.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1349 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted it bub. Now you are trying to backpedal out of it. Too
I'm not trying to get out of anything. I'm still waiting for your opinion of my idea to make that story into a first grade reader. Do you have an opinion. It's not that much of a departure from "King & King" or "Daddy's Roommate."
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1350 Jan 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you missed the point. It takes one man and one woman to produce a child. This man and woman are the parents of that child.
You are referring to another class of parent, namely, legal parents. The fact is that without biological parents there would be no other class of parent, legal or otherwise. You are free to call my argument irrelevant but you can't call it fictitious. It seems that you would sweep biological parents under your rug along with religious freedom and choice. That's fine, it's your choice.
No Wondering, you never had a point here. You are simply trying to deflect the conversation away from your ridiculous arguments.

Non-biological parents can be de facto and de jure parents. If the kid considers his stepfather to be his "real dad" then he is, regardless of DNA. The fact that we are all the product of sexual reproduction is no a fact that has any application to gay marriage or to school curricula, outside of biology.

As for this comment" "You would sweep biological parents under the rug" all I can say is WTF. You aren't even making any sense now. What did I write against biological parents, by simply pointing out as others here have that biological parents sometimes do not end up in the role of ACTUAL parent to the child on a day to -day basis, which showed how your argument just didn't make a lick of sense.

And you aren't making any sense now either, as well as dodging every valid counterargument that has been throw at you.

You've lost the plot.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1351 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
Classic slippery slope fallacy stuff. They also love to throw out post hoc fallacies too. This person has had no exposure to actual logic or any kind of education in critical thinking.
Has this person even once actually articulated what their specific beef with homosexuality is? Can this person say clearly why the existence of homosexuals should be ignored in public school curricula?
Does he even know why he doesn't like gays?
He claims his objections are not religious, so in what are they based?
I think the most nuanced point that they have made is that homosexuality is "not normal". Basically he thinks gay sex is icky. Ironically, the only person concerned with homosexual sex is Wondering. Everyone else is talking about the topic, which is essentially equal protection of the laws.
Wondering wrote:
I think you missed the point. It takes one man and one woman to produce a child. This man and woman are the parents of that child.
And that is relevant to legal marriage how? Can people who are unwilling, or even incapable, of procreating legally marry? If so, your point is utterly irrelevant.
Wondering wrote:
You are referring to another class of parent, namely, legal parents. The fact is that without biological parents there would be no other class of parent, legal or otherwise. You are free to call my argument irrelevant but you can't call it fictitious. It seems that you would sweep biological parents under your rug along with religious freedom and choice. That's fine, it's your choice.
It is irrelevant. It is actually utterly irrelevant. I would invite you to state how this has any bearing whatsoever upon the topic at hand.

Can people with no ability to procreate marry? Yes.
Can people with no intention of procreating marry? Yes.
Can married people regardless of their ability to procreate adopt? Yes.
Can homosexuals adopt? In the vast majority of states, yes.
Can Wondering make a valid argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry? No.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1352 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
This person has had no exposure to actual logic or any kind of education in critical thinking.
Has this person even once actually articulated what their specific beef with homosexuality is? Can this person say clearly why the existence of homosexuals should be ignored in public school curricula?
Does he even know why he doesn't like gays?
He claims his objections are not religious, so in what are they based?
You are coming across as chronically stupid.
Other than homosexuality isn't for me I have no beef with it.
I didn't say that homosexuality should be ignored in schools. I said it shouldn't be 1. presented as mainstream, and 2. forced on families that object for any reason including religion. An opt-out would solve the problem but homosexual advocates don't want that. They want that young audience.
I have nothing against gays, I have something against those that want to force their views onto others. Why are you against choice?

Lides is a troll and an idiot. I stopped reading his posts altogether. Used to call him Justice Dumbass.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1353 Jan 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
I'm not trying to get out of anything. I'm still waiting for your opinion of my idea to make that story into a first grade reader. Do you have an opinion. It's not that much of a departure from "King & King" or "Daddy's Roommate."
Do either of those books specifically address homosexual sex?
Of course not. They merely address that homosexuality exists.

Grow a brain. For that matter. come back to the topic at hand, which is not school curricula. In the alternative, offer a correlation between same sex marriage and school curricula that would render this argument relevant.

Do you enjoy being clueless?
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1354 Jan 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to get out of anything. I'm still waiting for your opinion of my idea to make that story into a first grade reader. Do you have an opinion. It's not that much of a departure from "King & King" or "Daddy's Roommate."
Who cares what YOUR speculation of what the content might be is?

Are you afraid to talk about the actual information being provided, I assume because it (like everything else you cite) doesn't actually support your argument?

I have no use for your hypothetical. I am interested in discussing the nature of the information actually at issue in the Parker case, because that's what matters, not your daydreams of sweaty quarterbacks.

My opinion is that you are confused about a great many things, including possibly your own sexuality.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1355 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
The fact that we are all the product of sexual reproduction is no a fact that has any application to gay marriage or to school curricula, outside of biology.
Of course it doesn't, gender gets swept under your rug. Must be some lump under there. I think mothers and fathers are important and you don't. That's fine, I don't really care what you think.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1356 Jan 31, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the most nuanced point that they have made is that homosexuality is "not normal". Basically he thinks gay sex is icky. Ironically, the only person concerned with homosexual sex is Wondering. Everyone else is talking about the topic, which is essentially equal protection of the laws.
<quoted text>
And that is relevant to legal marriage how? Can people who are unwilling, or even incapable, of procreating legally marry? If so, your point is utterly irrelevant.
<quoted text>
It is irrelevant. It is actually utterly irrelevant. I would invite you to state how this has any bearing whatsoever upon the topic at hand.
Can people with no ability to procreate marry? Yes.
Can people with no intention of procreating marry? Yes.
Can married people regardless of their ability to procreate adopt? Yes.
Can homosexuals adopt? In the vast majority of states, yes.
Can Wondering make a valid argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry? No.
i happen to think that gay sex is icky too. I don't think that this opinion (to which I was conditioned as a child by a mildly homophobic parent) means I can deny the rights of others, or have the government do it for me.

It is always the case that this homophobes are the ones that cite, dwell on, and obsess about gay sex. Always. They are always the ones to bring it up, every time.

He can't argue the issue because he has no argument to make. He doesn't even know enough about basic civics to not embarrass himself in a discussion about basic first amendment stuff.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1357 Jan 31, 2013
It's very simple. Give objecting parents the opt out option. That should make everyone happy.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1358 Jan 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You are coming across as chronically stupid.
Other than homosexuality isn't for me I have no beef with it.
I didn't say that homosexuality should be ignored in schools. I said it shouldn't be 1. presented as mainstream, and 2. forced on families that object for any reason including religion. An opt-out would solve the problem but homosexual advocates don't want that. They want that young audience.
I have nothing against gays, I have something against those that want to force their views onto others. Why are you against choice?
Lides is a troll and an idiot. I stopped reading his posts altogether. Used to call him Justice Dumbass.
Coming from you that's practically an endorsement of my genius. At least I know the First Amendment from my ass, which you evidently do not.

You have a very big beef with homosexuality or you would not be arguing here. In fact I think talking about makes your beef big. Ever hear about that study they did on homophobes vs. non-homophobes? Guess which group got more aroused when shown homosexual sex?

1. You have not shown how the material was presented.
2. No one has the right to be unoffended by reality. Again, homeschool your kids if you don't want them exposed to aspects of objective reality with which you personally disagree.
3. You do have something against gays or you would not be here making a fool of yourself.
4. providing information is not forcing beliefs on anybody. What you are REALLY saying is that you think this information will make kids gay, though you won't admit it. That automatically implies an animus against homosexuality.

Didn't I warn you that you are transparent?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1359 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what YOUR speculation of what the content might be is?
Are you afraid to talk about the actual information being provided, I assume because it (like everything else you cite) doesn't actually support your argument?
I have no use for your hypothetical. I am interested in discussing the nature of the information actually at issue in the Parker case, because that's what matters, not your daydreams of sweaty quarterbacks.
My opinion is that you are confused about a great many things, including possibly your own sexuality.
Again, I gave you titles to the books. Tip: google them.
The only thing that matters in the Parker incident is that they were not allowed to opt out. Your opinion of me, gays often question the sexuality of the posters they disagree with.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1360 Jan 31, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
i happen to think that gay sex is icky too.
Be honest, it's 2013 and PC.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1361 Jan 31, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it doesn't, gender gets swept under your rug. Must be some lump under there. I think mothers and fathers are important and you don't. That's fine, I don't really care what you think.
"X swept under your rug"

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No one here said that mothers and fathers were unimportant, only that their existence is not relevant to the legal issues being discussed here. You don't even know how it applies. My goodness you are very confused and have a problem with reading comprehension, which coupled with your hilarious misunderstanding of how logic works, points me to one conclusion:

You are not well educated.

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 Gay couple denied baby through surrogate challe... 36 min spud 33
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr River Tam 56,093
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr cpeter1313 9,968
News A 2nd former Hershey School student says he was... 5 hr Bob 10
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 5 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 36
News Former Missouri college wrestler sentenced for ... 5 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 7
News Downers library official faces removal after re... 5 hr BHS alum 2
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 6 hr Bernice 69
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 7 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 52
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 8 hr Prisoner of my Mo... 29
More from around the web