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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1382 Feb 1, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
They do. They have a choice between the public school curriculum, a private school curriculum, or home-schooling.
It's simple, but you don't seem to understand that.
It's not that simple but you don't seem to understand that. An opt out would be a simple solution.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1383 Feb 1, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And the school and the judge were right.
How can you say that something is legal but has an opt-out in school on the basis that some people don't like it?
The school and the judge were wrong. Both had total disregard for Parker and his family.

Smoking is legal but banned in schools.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1384 Feb 1, 2013
Tony C wrote:
lides and Strel, you've both done a great job with this one.
HAHAHA! Lides couldn't do a good job tying his shoes.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1385 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
HAHAHA! Lides couldn't do a good job tying his shoes.
You are, for once, correct; although not for the reason you think. I wear slip ons.

Care to address the topic at hand? I don't think you can.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1386 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
The school and the judge were wrong. Both had total disregard for Parker and his family.
Smoking is legal but banned in schools.
If the judge were wrong, in their inept federal case, then why didn't they resubmit in state court, as the judge left them room to do?

Even Parker was smarter than you, and could see such a case was going nowhere. Do you know why? Because the state allows parents to opt of of sex ed, and the books concerned come nowhere near the topic.

Anyone who is not a mental midget could understand the simple point.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1387 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They should have no link but the Lexington school used legal gay marriage as a reason to avoid parental notification and to refuse an opt out. The school was backed up by a judge.
This is where your logic fails.

That does work (in a very minor way) as an argument in favor of the information, but how do you know that this argument was dispositive? It only makes sense that they would make as an argument that "well it is accepted out there these days." The counterargument to that is "no it's not", not "you can't get married."

That's logically fallacious.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1388 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
It's not that simple but you don't seem to understand that. An opt out would be a simple solution.
An opt out already exists, for sex ed. The courses in question are not sex ed. Perhaps, you should go back to school?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1389 Feb 1, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where your logic fails.
That does work (in a very minor way) as an argument in favor of the information, but how do you know that this argument was dispositive? It only makes sense that they would make as an argument that "well it is accepted out there these days." The counterargument to that is "no it's not", not "you can't get married."
That's logically fallacious.
You expect Wonderbread to understand a fallacy? That's logically complicated. They can't count to 4.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1390 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true, but it isn't true for everyone. I'm for choice when it comes to topics as sensitive and provocative as homosexuality. Allowing an opt out of this material is the answer.
Of course it's true for everyone. Every parent has the option to use private schools or home school.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1391 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that simple but you don't seem to understand that. An opt out would be a simple solution.
Then explain to me why it isn't so simple.

Lots of simple solutions are not acceptable solutions.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1392 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The school and the judge were wrong. Both had total disregard for Parker and his family.
Smoking is legal but banned in schools.
I knew you would come up with a stupid example you thought was relevant.

Discussion of smoking is not banned in schools.

Smoking is not legal for certain ages or in many buildings.

My high school had a smoking lounge, so it was not banned.

Any more stupid examples?

The judge and the school have no obligation to have any regard for Parker or his family. We have no obligation to accomodate prejudice.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1393 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The school and the judge were wrong. Both had total disregard for Parker and his family.
Smoking is legal but banned in schools.
You really excel at choosing bad examples.

Unless you can prove that like smoking, basic, age-appropriate material on homosexuality is inherently harmful, this is not an argument.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1394 Feb 1, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it's true for everyone. Every parent has the option to use private schools or home school.
Not every parent has the money or the skills. School is mandatory, for those people neither is an option. An opt out would solve the problem.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1395 Feb 1, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew you would come up with a stupid example you thought was relevant.
Discussion of smoking is not banned in schools.
Smoking is not legal for certain ages or in many buildings.
My high school had a smoking lounge, so it was not banned.
Any more stupid examples?
The judge and the school have no obligation to have any regard for Parker or his family. We have no obligation to accomodate prejudice.
The stupid part was your post. It made me laugh out loud. Here it is again:
"How can you say that something is legal but has an opt-out in school on the basis that some people don't like it?"
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1396 Feb 1, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
You really excel at choosing bad examples.
Unless you can prove that like smoking, basic, age-appropriate material on homosexuality is inherently harmful, this is not an argument.
It is an appropriate response to his question.
"How can you say that something is legal but has an opt-out in school on the basis that some people don't like it?"

Since each person is different, the degree of harm caused by forcing kids to read books about gay relationships vary. Asking me to prove it is not much different than me asking you to prove homosexuality isn't a disorder. You can't just say that it isn't because 1/3 of the APA membership voted it off the list. Gays have no problem telling you that they are more suicidal and agoraphobic and then saying they ave no disorder.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1397 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
The stupid part was your post. It made me laugh out loud. Here it is again:
"How can you say that something is legal but has an opt-out in school on the basis that some people don't like it?"
Do you just mean to reiterate that you lack reading comprehension?

Mission accomplished.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1398 Feb 1, 2013
Strel wrote:
Unless you can prove that like smoking, basic, age-appropriate material on homosexuality is inherently harmful, this is not an argument.
I don't know if you're familiar with books in the "Dick & Jane" series. Two kids and their dog playing together. That's what we got in elementary school.

Two kids playing with their dog. The teacher never said they were straight kids, just two kids. All of a sudden it's important to say if they are gay kids but unnecessary to mention anything if they're straight kids. It's important for schools to have a "gay pride day" but not important to have a straight pride day. When was the last time you saw a straight pride parade?

Gay specific material in elementary schools should come with an opt out option for those who disagree with those values and that lifestyle.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1399 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
I don't know if you're familiar with books in the "Dick & Jane" series. Two kids and their dog playing together. That's what we got in elementary school.
Two kids playing with their dog. The teacher never said they were straight kids, just two kids. All of a sudden it's important to say if they are gay kids but unnecessary to mention anything if they're straight kids. It's important for schools to have a "gay pride day" but not important to have a straight pride day. When was the last time you saw a straight pride parade?
Gay specific material in elementary schools should come with an opt out option for those who disagree with those values and that lifestyle.
So, now you are not so anti-bullying if the anti-bullying strategy addresses concepts to which you object?

You are such a hypocrite.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1400 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not every parent has the money or the skills. School is mandatory, for those people neither is an option. An opt out would solve the problem.
Not my problem if they can't afford it. Then they'll just have to suffer the hardship of learning that gay people are equal. Poor them.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#1401 Feb 1, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It is an appropriate response to his question.
"How can you say that something is legal but has an opt-out in school on the basis that some people don't like it?"
Since each person is different, the degree of harm caused by forcing kids to read books about gay relationships vary. Asking me to prove it is not much different than me asking you to prove homosexuality isn't a disorder. You can't just say that it isn't because 1/3 of the APA membership voted it off the list. Gays have no problem telling you that they are more suicidal and agoraphobic and then saying they ave no disorder.
That is not and cannot be a standard. We're going to have a different standard of harm based on people's subjective opinions?

That's arbitrary and capricious. There has to be an objective standard. The very fact that you cannot prove it makes it useless as a benchmark.

Your last sentence, once again, belies your prejudice and ignorance. In fact a recent study showed that gay men are less prone to depression and anxiety than straight men.

Even if your assertions about that are true, they are not relevant to gay rights or school curricula.

You have this really bad habit of drawing connections between things that are not connected.

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 Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 3 min freedom2016 2,197
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 57 min petrol 4,743
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Lixy9440 22,560
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 4 hr Sorry Hill 54
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 5 hr guest 534
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr River Tam 43,078
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 6 hr Dalton 20
More from around the web