Gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman. Full Story

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3311 May 15, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Parse bunny!
Says the one who claims others offer nothing but insults. Ironic, don't you think?
anonymous wrote:
Admit that you CAN'T apologize. You are playing monkey pack rules and NO alpha would ever SUBMIT!
No, anonymous, I won't apologize, because my remarks were accurate. In fact, you continue to prove that they were spot on with each post that fails to advance a rational argument in defense of your position.
anonymous wrote:
Anyway, you lose! You're just posing. You are in denial about your sound bite rubbish and You're still a parse bunny who can't defend anything he or she posts.
Have you noticed that you offer infantile phrases like "parse bunny" while I have cited levels of judicial scrutiny and US Supreme Court cases?

I notice you have not even so much as attempted to refute them, because you can't. In fact you can't even offer an argument that could withstand the lowest level of judicial scrutiny.
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

#3312 May 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, but your argument is, once again, irrelevant. You have equal protection to choose to marry, that you ELECT not to do so is your choice, it does not represent unequal protection under the law, because you have chosen not to seek the legal protections of marriage.
Marriage is not a choice for some single people who want to be married and cant find a partner for any number of reasons such as diformity or illness or whatever.What happens to them,why are they not protected equaly as the law says.Dont say its a choice for them like you have previously said,as you would probably have more of a choice in getting married to someone of the opposite sex (but choose not to )now than what they would.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3313 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try anonymous, but once again, you air only your ignorance.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and it is the business only of the consenting adults involved. Attempting to label it is a medical condition, compare it to pedophilia (which is illegal), or as abnormal are merely attempts to rationalize your own animus. The reality remains that your comparisons are both insults, and unfounded accusations. Have you ever heard of libel?
Legally, the US Supreme court has held marriage to be a fundamental right on 14 separate occasions. http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
It has also separately held that,
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
If homosexuality is "only" a sexual orientation, than it's a choice. That means that it is nothing more than a political manifestation and ABSOLUTELY NOT a thing that the government should be protecting, subsidizing or endorsing in any way.

Meanwhile, I still demand equal protection, Jeeves! I DEMAND it!!!!
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3314 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the one who claims others offer nothing but insults. Ironic, don't you think?
<quoted text>
No, anonymous, I won't apologize, because my remarks were accurate. In fact, you continue to prove that they were spot on with each post that fails to advance a rational argument in defense of your position.
<quoted text>
Have you noticed that you offer infantile phrases like "parse bunny" while I have cited levels of judicial scrutiny and US Supreme Court cases?
I notice you have not even so much as attempted to refute them, because you can't. In fact you can't even offer an argument that could withstand the lowest level of judicial scrutiny.
Parse Bunny! This is mild compared to the insults you and yours regularly slop around like you were poking people with your magic wand.

As I see it, that's the result of bad karma.....and you expect extra police protection while you pose with your widdle wand? You'll be lucky if the police don't beat you up!

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#3315 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexuality is "only" a sexual orientation, than it's a choice. That means that it is nothing more than a political manifestation and ABSOLUTELY NOT a thing that the government should be protecting, subsidizing or endorsing in any way.
Meanwhile, I still demand equal protection, Jeeves! I DEMAND it!!!!
you have proven yourself that homosexuality is not a choice. why do you have to keep lying about that? is that the only way you can justify your prejudice and bigotry?

if you can[t put forth an honest argument you need to admit to your self that your view on this is wrong.
Fred

Alexandria, VA

#3316 May 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you have proven yourself that homosexuality is not a choice. why do you have to keep lying about that? is that the only way you can justify your prejudice and bigotry?

if you can[t put forth an honest argument you need to admit to your self that your view on this is wrong.
How many times have you su:cked a d!cked in the past week?

2 times
5 times
10 times
Too many to count
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3317 May 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you have proven yourself that homosexuality is not a choice. why do you have to keep lying about that? is that the only way you can justify your prejudice and bigotry?
if you can[t put forth an honest argument you need to admit to your self that your view on this is wrong.
Actually, I think I've proven that your obsessive/compulsive behavior is a psychological condition.

It's not really scientific proof but if you simply can't answer yes/no questions, you completely deny calling people idiots at the drop of a hat, you parrot-talk words like "lying" without EVER giving proper context for the accusation and you go on ranting about civil rights while also talking about state interests, I don't think the average reader with any attention span could conclude otherwise.

I don't make sweeping assumptions though. You could have a vitamin B deficiency! You could have been dropped as a baby. You could have been eating lead-based paint chips off the walls while growing up.

You might even be some really ordinary White male who is perhaps from parents of part Eastern and part Western European ancestry, and who really doesn't quite fit into any kind of monkey pack mentality and gets labelled a nerd. In order to protect your ego, you may just have invented some special condition that you call "love" but which is really an anti-social manifestation of all the nervous tics you've accumulated over time and have packaged and marketed as a alternative sexual orientation.

You may even consider this be some bizarre form of "evolution" which actually only betrays your inner desire to make it with the opposite sex but without having to compete with others of your own sex for the privilege of working your rut off.

Some people might say that such a personality would be an atrocity of a parental role model, but others might join your cause because they have their own problems with parental authority that have spilled over into adulthood and although they may get their piece of action every now and then, they still covet their mother deep down inside and only find stimulation when they are in conflict with that ambiguous paternal figure. They may invite your nihilistic dogma into their social system as a means of confounding the experience and popularity of solid paternal figures.

But then again, some people might just think that the nutjobs from Arkham Asylum were on the loose.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3318 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexuality is "only" a sexual orientation, than it's a choice. That means that it is nothing more than a political manifestation and ABSOLUTELY NOT a thing that the government should be protecting, subsidizing or endorsing in any way.
Meanwhile, I still demand equal protection, Jeeves! I DEMAND it!!!!
Did you "choose" your sexual orientation? If so, how did you come to your decision?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3319 May 16, 2013
Fred wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have you su:cked a d!cked in the past week?
2 times
5 times
10 times
Too many to count
Please, we're not interested in your sexual fantasies.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3320 May 16, 2013
common sense wrote:
Marriage is not a choice for some single people who want to be married and cant find a partner for any number of reasons such as diformity or illness or whatever.What happens to them,why are they not protected equaly as the law says.Dont say its a choice for them like you have previously said,as you would probably have more of a choice in getting married to someone of the opposite sex (but choose not to )now than what they would.
They are equally protected, the law does not make provisions for those who can't find a willing partner, and that would be a separate issue. Perhaps we should make an exception for the pathetic?

The issue here is whether there is a legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection for consenting, adult, same sex couples to marry.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3321 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
If homosexuality is "only" a sexual orientation, than it's a choice. That means that it is nothing more than a political manifestation and ABSOLUTELY NOT a thing that the government should be protecting, subsidizing or endorsing in any way.
Meanwhile, I still demand equal protection, Jeeves! I DEMAND it!!!!
No more than heterosexuality, and even if it WERE a choice (an assertion that once again, you cannot factually support) that would be irrelevant to the guarantee of equal protection under the law. The choice to marry someone of another race is unquestionably a choice, yet that choice is protected by law. What is more, that wasn't always the case.

You aren't really making a valid case against gay marriage. You are making yourself look like something of a lunatic.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3322 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Parse Bunny! This is mild compared to the insults you and yours regularly slop around like you were poking people with your magic wand.
As I see it, that's the result of bad karma.....and you expect extra police protection while you pose with your widdle wand? You'll be lucky if the police don't beat you up!
Here's the difference, you prove your idiocy with every post. Actually, stooping to hurl the infantile insult of "parse bunny" just further proves that you are incapable of making a valid argument for your position.

I have offered US Supreme Court decisions, citation of the US Constitution, and standards of judicial review. While you, on the other hand, have offered half-baked rationalizations, which you seldom, if ever, are able to support with fact. Grow up.

Can you offer a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, or are you ready to concede that your argument has no basis in fact, law, or reason, and that it's basis is only your personal animus against homosexuals?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3325 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Actually, I think I've proven that your obsessive/compulsive behavior is a psychological condition.
I quite agree, you should seek professional help.
anonymous wrote:
It's not really scientific proof but if you simply can't answer yes/no questions, you completely deny calling people idiots at the drop of a hat, you parrot-talk words like "lying" without EVER giving proper context for the accusation and you go on ranting about civil rights while also talking about state interests, I don't think the average reader with any attention span could conclude otherwise.
Oh, I acknowledge calling you an idiot, but it was not at the drop of a hat. I read your position, I asked you questions, I asked for substantiation of your positions, and in an idiotic manner you failed to support your assertions. At that point, you became perfectly deserving of the label, particularly in those instances when you made claims fully disclosing that they were lacking in scientific basis. You are an idiot, and I am certain that comes as an unpleasant truth, but that does not make it any less a truth.

As for the end of your run on sentence, it doesn't matter what the average reader would understand. We are talking about matters of law. In many instances they elude the average reader. Of course, equal protection of the law is a pretty basic concept, and thus far you lack a basic argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry. Yet you continue to argue, absent a factual, rational, or scientific basis, which is further proof of your idiocy.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3326 May 16, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you "choose" your sexual orientation? If so, how did you come to your decision?
That would be a little like 'choosing' to walk with our feet...

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#3327 May 16, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be a little like 'choosing' to walk with our feet...
Exactly, and that is why homosexuality is not a choice either.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#3328 May 16, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, and that is why homosexuality is not a choice either.
Well,'that' would be a little like walking on your hands...and it does require a 'choice' to do so....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3329 May 16, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Well,'that' would be a little like walking on your hands...and it does require a 'choice' to do so....
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is equal protection of the law.

Electing to marry, is a choice.
Electing to marry someone of another race is a choice.
Electing to purchase a gun is a choice.

So, choice, is not inherently relevant to the guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.

In order to deny equal protection of the law requires a legitimate state interest served by the restriction. Like laws disallowing convicted felons from gun ownership, or those preventing close relatives from marrying.

You have never indicated such an interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Instead you have offered various, fundamentally flawed, rationalizations that frequently fail to even address the topic at hand. They are quite effective in making you appear foolish.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3330 May 16, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you "choose" your sexual orientation? If so, how did you come to your decision?
Well, I'll be honest. I didn't see much reason to question my expectations of what sexuality was before reaching puberty.

I was a bit anxiety prone when I was young. I was inclined to keep my feelings as locked up tight as possible because I was prone to arousal just by thinking about arousal. For most of my adult life, I just didn't show my feelings because I assumed, and probably quite rightly so, that most people weren't too interested in sex because they weren't secure in the idea of a sexual relationship.

Jocks and cheerleaders tend to be secure in the pursuit of their relationships because they are incredibly thick-headed in their obviously selfish interests. Most of the rest of us get involved in relationships of convenience. For my part, I've never found marriage to be convenient.

I've always been fairly aloof. I'm not spending my money to get attention and I don't beat up "wimps" to eliminate competition. I'm fairly confident that my psychological makeup is multiracial, although I have no actual recent family records to that effect. By my observation, that gives the "norms" the feeling that I lack maturity when the reality is that I make my social decisions with a far more diverse set of rules that I tend to assume that all people follow.....And that assumption tends to disappoint me every time!

What's left is the reality that I'm not an easily understood person who is confident in my ability to maintain a relationship, but not confident in a partner's ability to keep those things that are just between us, between only us.

I can assume that many females feel the same way, but when it comes down to it, it's not that people like me feel they can't succeed in a relationship, it's that there are too many people out there who are far too one-way to make it worthwhile to put much effort into the process.

What on earth would I expect to gain by considering a gay relationship which would probably be indulging one-way behavior on an order of magnitude greater then that which I've already chosen not to endure?

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#3331 May 16, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'll be honest. I didn't see much reason to question my expectations of what sexuality was before reaching puberty.
I was a bit anxiety prone when I was young. I was inclined to keep my feelings as locked up tight as possible because I was prone to arousal just by thinking about arousal. For most of my adult life, I just didn't show my feelings because I assumed, and probably quite rightly so, that most people weren't too interested in sex because they weren't secure in the idea of a sexual relationship.
Jocks and cheerleaders tend to be secure in the pursuit of their relationships because they are incredibly thick-headed in their obviously selfish interests. Most of the rest of us get involved in relationships of convenience. For my part, I've never found marriage to be convenient.
I've always been fairly aloof. I'm not spending my money to get attention and I don't beat up "wimps" to eliminate competition. I'm fairly confident that my psychological makeup is multiracial, although I have no actual recent family records to that effect. By my observation, that gives the "norms" the feeling that I lack maturity when the reality is that I make my social decisions with a far more diverse set of rules that I tend to assume that all people follow.....And that assumption tends to disappoint me every time!
What's left is the reality that I'm not an easily understood person who is confident in my ability to maintain a relationship, but not confident in a partner's ability to keep those things that are just between us, between only us.
I can assume that many females feel the same way, but when it comes down to it, it's not that people like me feel they can't succeed in a relationship, it's that there are too many people out there who are far too one-way to make it worthwhile to put much effort into the process.
What on earth would I expect to gain by considering a gay relationship which would probably be indulging one-way behavior on an order of magnitude greater then that which I've already chosen not to endure?
wow, lots of rambling about shot no-one cares to know about you...did you choose the gender you are attracted to or not?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#3332 May 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I quite agree, you should seek professional help.
<quoted text>
Oh, I acknowledge calling you an idiot, but it was not at the drop of a hat. I read your position, I asked you questions, I asked for substantiation of your positions, and in an idiotic manner you failed to support your assertions. At that point, you became perfectly deserving of the label, particularly in those instances when you made claims fully disclosing that they were lacking in scientific basis. You are an idiot, and I am certain that comes as an unpleasant truth, but that does not make it any less a truth.
As for the end of your run on sentence, it doesn't matter what the average reader would understand. We are talking about matters of law. In many instances they elude the average reader. Of course, equal protection of the law is a pretty basic concept, and thus far you lack a basic argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry. Yet you continue to argue, absent a factual, rational, or scientific basis, which is further proof of your idiocy.
Your logic really does go out the window once you start monologueing.

Not much point in refuting. First, you're still a parse bunny. Second, you're personal feelings of entitlement to respect don't factor into a discussion forum. You choose to be civil or you don't. That's all there is to it.

Now, if you were me, how would you respond to your first parsed bit of lunacy? There's no agreement to seek professional help because nobody has acknowledged the need to leave the topic to "professionals". You're monologueing like a villain in a cheap comic book! Do you want to call your self "Doctor Evil" too? Your debate is not only repetitive sound bites, it's embarrassingly cliche!

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Michael Jackson's mom taking lawsuit to Calif. ... 14 min BLANKET JACKSON 35
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min mdbuilder 51,485
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 23 min Jacques Ottawa 184,948
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 26 min HitMan 201,387
Guest-Worker Proposal Has Wide Support (Apr '06) 16 hr swedenforever 3
19 F skype 19 hr Sugarhoney1230 1
US new home sales fall slightly in January Sun Jesus Latter Day ... 7
More from around the web