Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

Jun 11, 2011 Full story: Contra Costa Times 12,365

In this Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2009 file picture, New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx, right, speaks during a debate over same-sex marriage in the New York state Senate at the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. Diaz complained in May 2011 that he's received death threats because he opposes legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Full Story

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12603 Dec 5, 2012
Peenertrajectory wrote:
KiMare is most likely "BiMAre", if you know what I mean.
It's worse than that. I'm a hermaphroditic genetic chimera with three nipples. A lesbian trapped in a straight mans body.

I'm also a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.

Smirk.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12605 Dec 5, 2012
tahW wrote:
<quoted text>
Somewhere on here a posting stated that marriage was based on a union of love. You will argue that a man or woman cannot love their donkey? There most certainly can be a union. Not an easy one, but I would imagine same sex aint easy.
As for when an animal can say, "yes", the animal doesn't have to say yes, the love is obvious. And no, we are not comparing gays to animals.
Bottom line is that no matter how much you cry and complain about unfair treatment and inequality, gays will never get there. It's simply not equal and not the same.
You fail to show how all same sex marriages are different from all opposite sex marriages. And beyond the gender differences, you can't.

"Informed consent" is required for marriage. This is a legal term which requires both parties to be able to demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of the consequences and requirements of the contract they are entering. Even if your animal can meet the age requirements, it cannot demonstrate an appreciation of the contract it is entering.

Comparing the relationship of a human and an animal to that of two people is dehumanizing.
JoeSchmoe

Albany, NY

#12606 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to show how all same sex marriages are different from all opposite sex marriages. And beyond the gender differences, you can't.
"Informed consent" is required for marriage. This is a legal term which requires both parties to be able to demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of the consequences and requirements of the contract they are entering. Even if your animal can meet the age requirements, it cannot demonstrate an appreciation of the contract it is entering.
Comparing the relationship of a human and an animal to that of two people is dehumanizing.
But you are forgetting one key aspect.. Getting married requires permission from the state by granting a license to do so. You may have a "contract" and demonstrate that you understand that contract, but the state has to allow it to be recognized. The laws in many states state that the "contract" will not be recognized as it doesn't adhere to existing laws. It's not discriminatory as it applies to everyone. The same example is imparted to minors. They full well may understand the "contract" but the law states that being under age mandates an additional consent from the parents. Again non-discriminatory as it applies to all.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12608 Dec 5, 2012
JoeSchmoe wrote:
<quoted text>But you are forgetting one key aspect.. Getting married requires permission from the state by granting a license to do so. You may have a "contract" and demonstrate that you understand that contract, but the state has to allow it to be recognized. The laws in many states state that the "contract" will not be recognized as it doesn't adhere to existing laws. It's not discriminatory as it applies to everyone. The same example is imparted to minors. They full well may understand the "contract" but the law states that being under age mandates an additional consent from the parents. Again non-discriminatory as it applies to all.
Inter-racial marriage prohibitions applied to everyone, yet they were still discriminatory. Same sex prohibitions, while applying to everyone, are still discriminatory. For discrimination to be legal, the government must demonstrate a compelling and legitimate governmental interest provided by that discrimination. There is no such interest for prohibiting same sex marriage, just as there was no legitimate governmental interest in prohibiting inter-racial marriages.

The "informed consent" argument was in relation to marrying your donkey. It can never meet that standard, even if it can meet the age requirement.

But those denied a marriage license due to age, are not forever denied. It is simply postponed. They can still get married once they meet the age and informed consent requirements.

You provide no compelling legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of marriage equality.

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" ( Golinski.)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12609 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You provide no compelling legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of marriage equality.
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

Just an additional note.

The government is not required for marriage.

:-)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12610 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to show how all same sex marriages are different from all opposite sex marriages. And beyond the gender differences, you can't.
Beyond gender differences?

Hasn't that been the distinction in all of human history?

Diverse genders is not distinct in every single aspect from duplicate genders?

One produces human fruit, the other is devoid. Pretty distinct aspect in most people's minds...

You fail to show how a duplicate gender is anything more than two people in a legal contract.

That identifies with every adult multiple times over at the same time!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12611 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
Just an additional note.
The government is not required for marriage.
:-)
Hernandez is moot.

Yet it fails to explain how limiting marriage to straight people will stop gay people from having children, or provide any benefit to straight couples. No legitimate governmental interest is served by denial of equality. It only harms those denied while providing no benefit to straight families.

Because legal marriage is a government contract, it is irrational to state government isn't required for marriage.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”(Not just straight people, but ALL INDIVIDUALS.

Turner v. Safley. 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12612 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond gender differences?
Hasn't that been the distinction in all of human history?
Diverse genders is not distinct in every single aspect from duplicate genders?
One produces human fruit, the other is devoid. Pretty distinct aspect in most people's minds...
You fail to show how a duplicate gender is anything more than two people in a legal contract.
That identifies with every adult multiple times over at the same time!
Sterile straight people get married all time. Yet many gay people choose to reproduce, while others raise adopted children. You show no legitimate governmental purpose for harming gay families who are raising children, nor for those who like elderly or otherwise sterile families, choose not to raise children. Harming one provides no benefit to the other.

Gay people have been forming families since caveman days. Your belief they cannot be similar in terms of love, mutual respect, and lifelong commitment is your prejudice, not a reflection of the relationships of gay people throughout history.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12613 Dec 5, 2012
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.

A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.

Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.

Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.

Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.

:-)
Uradouche

Woodside, NY

#12614 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond gender differences?
Hasn't that been the distinction in all of human history?
Diverse genders is not distinct in every single aspect from duplicate genders?
One produces human fruit, the other is devoid. Pretty distinct aspect in most people's minds...
You fail to show how a duplicate gender is anything more than two people in a legal contract.
That identifies with every adult multiple times over at the same time!
Oh so you think that procreation is essential, do you? Let me clue you in, Einstein; this planet adds far more people each year than I can support with the resources at hand.

We would be FAR better off if a larger percentage of the populous didn't have children.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12615 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond gender differences?
Hasn't that been the distinction in all of human history?
Diverse genders is not distinct in every single aspect from duplicate genders?
One produces human fruit, the other is devoid. Pretty distinct aspect in most people's minds...
You fail to show how a duplicate gender is anything more than two people in a legal contract.
That identifies with every adult multiple times over at the same time!
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Sterile straight people get married all time. Yet many gay people choose to reproduce, while others raise adopted children. You show no legitimate governmental purpose for harming gay families who are raising children, nor for those who like elderly or otherwise sterile families, choose not to raise children. Harming one provides no benefit to the other.
Gay people have been forming families since caveman days. Your belief they cannot be similar in terms of love, mutual respect, and lifelong commitment is your prejudice, not a reflection of the relationships of gay people throughout history.
I see you have 'shifted' since you cannot defend your previous line of reasoning...

Okay...

Of course they do. There just isn't that many of them.

However, every single gay couple is sterile within their relationship.

Moreover, non-biological children ALREADY have protection and benefits. In fact, they have more government protection than biological children do!

The government has (as I noted) already acknowledged a interest in protecting and encouraging marriage and human fruitfulness within it's bounds. No other relationship can match it.

Please don't insult our intelligence with more substitute 'having children' and 'forming families'. They are and will always be sadly default lessor alternatives to the design of evolution.

;-)
Uradouche

Woodside, NY

#12616 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
Marriage is an invention of man, God and procreation have NOTHING to do with it.

I find it rather interesting that conservatives want less government regulation of guns, but more regulation of marriage.

Conservatives spend half of their lives trying to get the government from telling the how to live their lives, and the other half trying to get the government to tell OTHERS how to live theirs.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12617 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond gender differences?
Hasn't that been the distinction in all of human history?
Diverse genders is not distinct in every single aspect from duplicate genders?
One produces human fruit, the other is devoid. Pretty distinct aspect in most people's minds...
You fail to show how a duplicate gender is anything more than two people in a legal contract.
That identifies with every adult multiple times over at the same time!
Uradouche wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so you think that procreation is essential, do you? Let me clue you in, Einstein; this planet adds far more people each year than I can support with the resources at hand.
We would be FAR better off if a larger percentage of the populous didn't have children.
Please, show me where I said such a thing in what I wrote.

Then show me proof that our planet cannot support more people.

Finally, you really are saying procreation is not essential? Really.

Smirk.
Uradouche

Woodside, NY

#12618 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond gender differences?
Hasn't that been the distinction in all of human history?
Diverse genders is not distinct in every single aspect from duplicate genders?
One produces human fruit, the other is devoid. Pretty distinct aspect in most people's minds...
You fail to show how a duplicate gender is anything more than two people in a legal contract.
That identifies with every adult multiple times over at the same time!
<quoted text>
I see you have 'shifted' since you cannot defend your previous line of reasoning...
Okay...
Of course they do. There just isn't that many of them.
However, every single gay couple is sterile within their relationship.
Moreover, non-biological children ALREADY have protection and benefits. In fact, they have more government protection than biological children do!
The government has (as I noted) already acknowledged a interest in protecting and encouraging marriage and human fruitfulness within it's bounds. No other relationship can match it.
Please don't insult our intelligence with more substitute 'having children' and 'forming families'. They are and will always be sadly default lessor alternatives to the design of evolution.
;-)
You're very boring.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12619 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
Uradouche wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is an invention of man, God and procreation have NOTHING to do with it.
I find it rather interesting that conservatives want less government regulation of guns, but more regulation of marriage.
Conservatives spend half of their lives trying to get the government from telling the how to live their lives, and the other half trying to get the government to tell OTHERS how to live theirs.
Who are you responding to?

Nothing you said relates to what I wrote.

I suspect you took gay twirl talking points, didn't think them through yourself, and threw them at someone you disagree with.

I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian. Does that sound conservative to you???

Here is your first lesson.

Marriage is not an 'invention of man'. It is the cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior. Millions of years of refinement into the highest life form, personified in mother and father. You only have one of each, remember?

Bazinga!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12620 Dec 5, 2012
Uradouche wrote:
<quoted text>
You're very boring.
Ad homoan attack because reason has evaded you again.

Smirk.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12621 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad homoan attack
LOL
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12622 Dec 5, 2012
Uradouche wrote:
<quoted text>

We would be FAR better off if a larger percentage of the populous didn't have children.
Too bad YOUR parents didn't see it that way.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12623 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Marriage laws at their core exist to tie men to responsibility to their children.
A gay person cannot be put in this position. He/she cannot abandon his/her offspring that were naturally created with a same sex partner.
Marriage is about responsibility, not privilege. Each party has a duty to the other.
Traditionally the man had the responsibility to provide and protect and women had to be faithful and nurture. The laws were designed to support the natural order.
Homosexual relations cannot be part of this natural order because they do not give life and do not need protection the same way that life giving relations do.
:-)
That is your prejudice, not a requirement of law. Gay people are raising children, and harming those families provides no benefit to straight families.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12624 Dec 5, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Beyond gender differences?
Hasn't that been the distinction in all of human history?
Diverse genders is not distinct in every single aspect from duplicate genders?
One produces human fruit, the other is devoid. Pretty distinct aspect in most people's minds...
You fail to show how a duplicate gender is anything more than two people in a legal contract.
That identifies with every adult multiple times over at the same time!
<quoted text>
I see you have 'shifted' since you cannot defend your previous line of reasoning...
Okay...
Of course they do. There just isn't that many of them.
However, every single gay couple is sterile within their relationship.
Moreover, non-biological children ALREADY have protection and benefits. In fact, they have more government protection than biological children do!
The government has (as I noted) already acknowledged a interest in protecting and encouraging marriage and human fruitfulness within it's bounds. No other relationship can match it.
Please don't insult our intelligence with more substitute 'having children' and 'forming families'. They are and will always be sadly default lessor alternatives to the design of evolution.
;-)
Again, you are using your prejudice, not any requirement of law. The individual, fundamental right of marriage does not depend on procreation ability alone, yet gay people are raising children, and harming those families provides no benefit to straight families.

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
Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in... 4 min WeTheSheeple 16
Supreme Court allows same-sex marriages in Florida 4 min Wat U talkin bout... 4
'Fame-seeking' journalist may be behind arrest ... 4 min A Little Dab Will... 2
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 5 min L Craig s Hush Pu... 19
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 9 min L Craig s Hush Pu... 15
A Year in News: 2014 Brings Legal Gay Marriage ... 9 min WeTheSheeple 1
The NE Jade Sunday Afternoon Thread 13 min Normal Decent Hetero 1
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 15 min Brian_G 5,648
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 24 min WeTheSheeple 5,039
Gay-Bashing Pastor's Same-Sex Assault 2 hr Otter in the Ozarks 12
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr KiMerde 2,875
More from around the web